Covenant in the Persian Period: From Genesis to Chronicles 9781575063577

Citation preview

Covenant in the Persian Period

Covenant in the Persian Period From Genesis to Chronicles

Edited by

Richard J. Bautch and Gary N. Knoppers

Winona Lake, Indiana Eisenbrauns 2015

© 2015 by Eisenbrauns Inc. All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America www.eisenbrauns.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Covenant in the Persian period : from Genesis to Chronicles / edited by Richard J. Bautch and Gary N. Knoppers.   pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-57506-356-0 (hardback : alk. paper) 1.  Covenant theology—Biblical teaching.  2.  Jews—History— Babylonian captivity, 598–515 B.C.—Biblical teaching.  I.  Bautch, Richard J., editor.  II.  Knoppers, Gary N., 1956– editor. BS680.C67C66 2015 221.6—dc23 2015024196 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. ♾ ™

Contents Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Part 1 Pentateuch Abraham amidst the Nations: The Priestly Concept of Covenant and the Persian Imperial Ideology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Jakob Wöhrle The “Eternal Covenant” in the Priestly Pentateuch and the Major Prophets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Andreas Schüle Correlating the Covenants in Exodus 24 and Exodus 34 . . . . . . . 59 Wolfgang Oswald The Covenant in Leviticus 26: A Concept of Admonition and Redemption . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Thomas Hieke

Part 2 Historical Books (Deuteronomistic History) “The Unwritten Text of the Covenant”: Torah in the Mouth of the Prophets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Reinhard Achenbach A Balancing Act: Settling and Unsettling Issues Concerning Past Divine Promises in Historiographical Texts Shaping Social Memory in the Late Persian Period . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Ehud Ben Zvi From Covenant to Connubium: Persian Period Developments in the Perception of Covenant in the Deuteronomistic History . . . . . . . . . . 131 Cynthia Edenburg v

vi

Contents

Part 3 Prophecy The Covenant in the Book of Jeremiah: On the Employment of Family and Political Metaphors . . . . 153 Dalit Rom-Shiloni Inner-Biblical Interpretation in the Redaction of Jeremiah 33:14–26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 Matthew Sjöberg Breaking an Eternal Covenant: Isaiah 24:5 and Persian-Period Discourse about the Covenant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 J. Todd Hibbard Presumptions of “Covenant” in Joel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 James Nogalski Curse, Covenant, and Temple in the Book of Haggai . . . . . . . . 229 John Kessler Zechariah 11 and the Shepherd’s Broken Covenant . . . . . . . . . 255 Richard J. Bautch The Reproach of the Priests (Malachi 1:6–2:9) within Malachi’s Conception of Covenant . . . . . . . . . . . 271 Elie Assis Achaemenid Persian Concepts Pertaining to Covenant and Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291 Christine Mitchell

Part 4 Wisdom Literature The Psalms, Covenant, and the Persian Period . . . . . . . . . . . 309 W. H. Bellinger Jr. Poems, Prayers, and Promises: The Psalms and Israel’s Three Covenants . . . . . . . . . . . . 323 Carol J. Dempsey “When the Friendship of God Was upon My Tent”: Covenant as Essential Background to Lament in the Wisdom Literature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339 Jamie A. Grant Qohelet and the Covenant: Some Preliminary Observations . . . . 357 Thomas M. Bolin

Contents

vii

Part 5 Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah Ezra 10:3: Solemn Oath? Renewed Covenant? New Covenant? . . . 371 Douglas J. E. Nykolaishen Reenvisioning the Relationship: Covenant in Chronicles . . . . . . 391 Mark J. Boda “The Ark of the Covenant of the Lord”: The Place of Covenant in the Chronicler’s Theology . . . . . . 409 Louis C. Jonker Index of Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431 Index of Scripture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437

Abbreviations A2Hc A3Pa DB DE DtrH DHC DNa DPd DPe DSe DSf DSt DSa DSb DZc P PS XE XPa XPb XPc XPd XPf XPh XV

Artaxerxes II, Hamadan c inscription Artaxerxes III, Persepolis A, B, C, D inscription Darius I’s trilingual rock inscription at Behistun Darius I, Mt. Elvend trilingual inscription Deuteronomistic History Deuteronomistic Historical Collection Darius I, inscriptions on the king’s tomb at Naqš-i Rustam Darius I, Persepolis D inscription (on the south façade of the Persepolis palace) Darius I, Persepolis E inscription (on the south façade of the Persepolis palace) Darius I, Susa E inscription Darius I, Susa F inscription Darius I, Susa T inscription Darius I, Susa A inscription Darius I, B inscription Darius, Suez C inscription Priestly Source/Writing additions to the original Priestly Source/Writing Xerxes, Mt. Elvend trilingual inscription Xerxes, Persepolis A trilingual inscription Xerxes, Persepolis B trilingual inscription Xerxes, Persepolis C trilingual in triplicate inscription Xerxes, Persepolis D trilingual in quadruplicate inscription Xerxes, Persepolis F bilingual inscription Xerxes, Persepolis H trilingual Daiva inscription Xerxes, Van trilingual inscription

viii

Introduction The Neo-Babylonian and Persian periods witnessed many changes in Judean society—the upheaval of the Davidic monarchy, the destruction of the temple, the disenfranchisement of the Jerusalem priesthood, the deportation of Judeans to other lands (especially to Babylon), the struggles of Judeans who remained in the land, and the later returns of some Judean groups from exile. During these times of change, covenant (however one defines it) proved to be an increasingly important and influential motif in Judean intellectual life. Indeed, Judean literature exhibits a striking diversity of ideas related to covenantal themes. As the essays in this volume well attest, covenantal developments may be associated with prophetic circles, the Priestly school (or tradition), historiographic writers, and sapiential circles. In particular, the Sinai pact, arguably ancient Israel’s preeminent covenant, was transformed and came to play a significant role in the ongoing process of Jewish identity formation (Bautch 2009:3–6, 121). Covenant became a useful rubric by which early Judean writers explored divine-­Israelite relations (for example, the Sinaitic accord), the relationships between Yhwh and Israelite leaders of yore (for example, the Abrahamic and Davidic promises), Israelite-foreign relations (for example, the strictures against exogamy), and inner-Israelite relations (public agreements forged by Israelites with other Israelites). This collection of essays explores the tremendous range of covenantal perspectives that emerge during the Persian period, and it establishes the importance of each within its religious, social, and historical context. As such, this book fills a lacuna. In contrast with the boom in scholarship on covenant in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, there has been comparatively little recent research on covenant in the postmonarchic period. Even some studies on covenant in the Second Temple era gloss over the first two centuries, the Persian period roughly spanning from 539 to 330 b.c.e., before discussing covenant in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Judaism of the Hasmonean era. This limited interest in and understanding of postexilic covenantal traditions may be attributed to a variety of factors, but three in particular stand out. First, some scholars, such as George Mendenhall (1992: 1194), denigrated the Persian period as a time when the concept of covenant in Israel had run its course and had been reduced to a ritual form and a legal document. In this view, covenants of Persian period Yehud­ 1

2

Introduction

may be contrasted with those of premonarchic and monarchic Israel. Indeed, Mendenhall held that later covenants reflected the end of Israelite religion, and his contemporary Delbert Hillers (1969:143–68) similarly spoke of the senescence of covenant after the exile. Given the disregard for the Persian period in this typology, there was little impetus to explore its literature. Second, the presumed zenith of covenant in the premonarchic and monarchic periods, central to the views of Mendenhall and Hillers, overstated the place of covenant in Israelite religion during the first part of the first millennium b.c.e. Walter Eichrodt (1957) exemplified this position in his writings on covenant as the nucleus of ancient Israel’s legal and ethical life. Despite a strong minority view expressed by Lothar Perlitt (1969) and others that covenant was a late development starting mainly with Deuteronomy, the position of Eichrodt carried the day and became the classic view of covenant. As scholars eventually—and rightly—distanced themselves from the all-encompassing views associated with Eichrodt, their collective regard for covenant was replaced with suspicion. Third, those scholars arguing for the importance of covenant to ancient corporate identity nevertheless disagreed vigorously about what covenant was (or came to) in the history of Israelite tradition. Some scholars, such as Mendenhall, construed covenant as a bilateral, mutually binding agreement undertaken by two parties (not necessarily equals), analogous to client treaties and parity pacts attested in the international diplomacy negotiating interstate relations in the ancient Near East. By this accounting, the Neo-Babylonian and Persian periods were deemed to be far less interesting and to offer far fewer extrabiblical materials for comparative use. 1 Other scholars, such as Moshe Weinfeld (1970), argued for an understanding of covenant as an unconditional promise or obligation undertaken by one party on behalf of another. In this typology, the more contractual, mutually obligatory understanding of covenant in texts, such as Deuteronomy, represents a later development. 2 Other scholars, such as John Van Seters (1975), argued to the contrary that the rise of covenant as a unilateral promise (for example, the Abrahamic covenant in the so-called Yahwistic source) occurred in the Neo-Babylonian period and responded in part to older contractual notions, which were formative in the late monarchy. In 1.  By contrast, while also dealing with comparative ancient Near Eastern materials, Dennis McCarthy (1978) offered a more nuanced understanding of covenantal thinking in ancient Israel. 2.  On the problems with positing this sort of dichotomy in ancient covenantal theory and practice, see Knoppers (1996).

Introduction

3

this view, writings such as Second Isaiah promoted a fresh understanding of relations between Yhwh and Israel by stressing divine initiative, mercy, and grace. Among other things, this emphasis on covenant as enduring promise was meant to encourage Judean expatriates to return to the land, knowing that the assurances given to the ancestors remained valid. However important and lively this debate became, it resulted in somewhat of an impasse. This was so not only because diametrically different notions of covenant came into play but also because scholars disagreed profoundly about the history of covenantal thought in ancient Israel. The fundamental disagreement about core issues cast doubt on the entire enterprise. Ironically, what the older positions held in common was, for the most part, a relative lack of interest in covenant during the Persian period. This is unfortunate. 3 The present collection of essays aims to rectify matters­. While respecting previous studies, the writers in the present volume break with past models of exegesis and several judgments commonly associated with them. The essays establish new approaches to questions of covenant by considering what the biblical authors wrote about the divinehuman relationship in light of other salient issues that emerged during the Persian period. To the degree that covenantal ideas were expressed in religious discourse, the essays examine the postexilic content and contours of Yahwism in relation to other current religious traditions. A number of the essays share an interest in social history, the attempt to correlate postexilic formulations on covenants with what is known about the different social groups that existed within Judaism at this time. One question of special importance is how articulations of covenant informed the ongoing process of early Judean identity formation within a larger imperial context. In this respect, several essays address the increasing use of covenant to articulate not only the divine-human relationship, but human relationships within Judean culture as well. Cross-culturally, certain essays study the relationship between Persia as a colonizing empire and Yehud as a locus of imperialization. The result is a politically informed 3.  Even if one allowed, for the sake of argument, that covenant was originally bilateral only to become unilateral in later centuries (or vice versa), the discussion need not have ended there. Conceptions enshrined in older writings remained alongside newer conceptions. Given that scribes working in Second Temple Judah were heirs to a variety of traditions, how did they engage such discrepant understandings? For the members of Judah’s intellectual elite, what did this mixed heritage come to? Moreover, what impact did multiple views of covenant have in stimulating further reflection on covenant at a time in which both homeland Judeans and diasporic Judeans had to cope with Persian domination throughout the ancient Near Eastern world? The writers in this volume grapple with such questions.

4

Introduction

study of Judean religion articulated through the prism of covenant by a diverse group of scholars. Typically, the writer of a given chapter is a specialist on the biblical book in question and brings his or her command of the text to the study of covenant. In-depth and comprehensive, these essays on covenant offer a new window on Judaism in the Persian period. It is only coincidence that there are 22 essays, the number of characters in the Hebrew alphabet, although the comparison is apt in one sense. Collectively, the essays reflect the range of covenants from the Persian period attested in the Torah, the Prophets and the Writings. The volume’s subtitle, “from Genesis to Chronicles,” refers to the breadth of these studies as a whole without implying the existence (or even the anticipation of) a canon in Achaemenid times. Rather, the writings, whether shaped, edited, or written during this era, exhibit considerable literary and ideological diversity. Attestations of covenant and covenantal thinking appear in a variety of genres, including pentateuchal narratives and law collections, prophetic oracles, historiographical writings, lyrical psalms, and wisdom literature.

Seminal Issues Several pivotal issues arise in the study of covenant during postmonarchic times. In the aggregate, these points of discussion (and often dispute) provide an orientation to the volume. Some of the issues are methodological, and others relate to history, historical reconstruction, and histori­ ography. Theological issues are prominent as well. These issues arc across the volume to offer context for the individual essays. The first seminal issue relates to non-‫ ברית‬texts, or texts considered covenantal even though the most common Hebrew lexeme for covenant, ‫ברית‬, is not attested within these writings. In these cases, the exegete runs the risk of construing any text touching on the divine-human relation as an account of covenant. To avoid this fallacy, scholars will demonstrate that their text contains other indicators of covenant. In the case of “Presumptions of Covenant in Joel,” James Nogalski locates a connection between curse language in Joel and the covenantal curses in Deuteronomy. Nogalski argues that the absence of ‫ ברית‬in Joel does not eliminate the possibility that some understanding of covenant was at work in shaping the text or its logic. Similarly, Cynthia Edenburg rhetorically asks, “Is ‘covenant’ limited to the Hebrew term ‫ ?ברית‬Or can we find reference to the covenant idea and ideology on the basis of a broader semantic field that includes: ‫שבועה‬, ‫אלה‬, ‫עדות‬, and perhaps other terms? Or, perhaps it is enough to locate

Introduction

5

an allusion to a social or cultic custom that might have been associated somewhere and sometime with the ceremony in which the establishment of a covenant relationship was enacted or concluded?” To make her point, Edenburg demonstrates that the concept of covenant underwent changes over time, specifically changes in signification. She shows, for example, that in Persian period Yehud the idea of connubial ties became related to the basic concept of covenant; in turn, the concept of covenant was applied to connubium and marital relations, as in Joshua 9. As Edenburg works with the dynamics of covenantal language, Nogalski recognizes its allusive quality. Most of the essays here have ‫ ברית‬attested in the biblical text, but on the issue of non-‫ ברית‬texts, the work of Nogalski, Edenburg, and others breaks new ground in the study of covenant by bringing texts such as Joel and Joshua 9 into the discussion. Another seminal issue is how covenantal traditions are conceived of in Persian period texts. Earlier scholarship developed typologies of covenant (for example, Abrahamic, Sinaitic, Davidic, the Priestly) and classified each covenant as either obligatory/conditional or promissory/unconditional. As we have seen, these scholars focused on (what they thought were) texts from the premonarchic and monarchic periods and tended to isolate covenantal traditions and kept them separate from one another. This is no longer the practice. The obligatory/promissory dichotomy is false; covenants assume relational expectations that are mutual and can be translated into conditions incumbent on both parties. The conditions are expressed differently in different texts, with the literary context often key for understanding a covenant’s conditionality. Conditionality differs from text to text, but it resides in virtually every covenantal text. Moreover, the typological approach is not serviceable when one is studying the Persian period because one may often find a confluence of covenantal traditions within a single text. For example, Leviticus 26 invokes both the covenant made with the ancestors (26:42) and the covenant of Sinai (26:45). 4 God declares that when the Israelites find themselves in the land of their enemies: “I shall not reject my people so as to annul my covenant with them” (‫ ;אתם בריתי להפר‬Lev 26:44). To the contrary, he will remember the ‫ברית‬ when he brought his people out of the land of Egypt to be their God. Clearly, the ancestral and Sinaitic traditions are not compartmentalized, and there is honest debate about the relationship between them. Are the patriarchal and Sinaitic traditions merged together, harmonized, or simply 4.  Another example of two covenants invoked simultaneously appears in Jer 33:25 (MT). See the essay by Matthew Sjöberg on pp. 175–193 in this volume.

6

Introduction

juxtaposed? Or is it the case, as some argue, that there is only one tradition invoked because there is no clear allusion to the Sinaitic pact? 5 Regardless of how one answers the question, it is clear that covenantal texts tend to blur typological lines. A third issue is covenant serving as the basis of group identity in Yehud. That is, the bonds that covenant indicated between humans and the Deity find a complement in specific bonds formed among human parties. Hillers (1969:143–46) noted this phenomenon in the covenant of Josiah (2 Kgs 23:1–3), where the people’s worship followed God’s law and lawful worship in turn bonded them together in human community. He thought that associating sociological functions with covenant degraded it and undercut its primary function, to exemplify the divine-human relationship theologically. Hillers differentiated sharply between preexilic theological covenants and postexilic sociological covenants. Interestingly, some scholars­ today follow Hillers’s bipartite line of thought, while others argue for a model of covenant in the Persian period that integrates the sociological and theological functions. In this volume, Mark Boda’s study of covenant in Chronicles advances the former position, while the essay by Richard Bautch on Zechariah is an example of the latter. The debate draws attention to a host of issues: tracing the impact of changes in historical and social circumstances on the conceptualization of covenant; articulating the relationship between the sociological and theological dimensions of covenant; clarifying how covenant can express the dynamics of group identity within Judean society as well as a “national” identity for Judeans who are subjects of the Persian Empire. Persian hegemony and its influence constitute a fourth seminal issue. In several of these essays, the extent of the relations between the Persian Weltenschaung and the satrap Beyond the River comes further to light. For example, Jakob Wöhrle identifies shared features of the Priestly concept of covenant and the Persian imperial ideology, as expressed through the Naqsh-i-Rustam inscription. The inscription indicates that through a sort of cosmic order the earth was created as a place of well-being for all humanity, with individual nations set peaceably in their respective places. In turn, Wöhrle notes, the Priestly concept of covenant is based on the idea that the earth is an inhabitable place where all humanity can blossom and develop; within this inhabitable place, the people descended from Abra5. There is an ongoing debate whether this verse alludes to the Sinaitic accord directly, refers to the communication of the ancestral ‫ ברית‬to the exodus generation, or presents the patriarchs and Sinai as “individual accentuations” of the covenant. See, further, Thomas Hieke’s essay, pp. 75–89 in this volume.

Introduction

7

ham and the neighboring nations separate and restrict themselves to their own territories. There is a geopolitical design within the Priestly concept of covenant, Wöhrle maintains, and the design is based on the Persian imperial ideology that the world is a place of well-being for all humanity structured into individual nations. In another essay, Christine Mitchell proposes that an Achaemenid analogue to the system of vassals and overlords (from which concepts covenant may be derived) is the bandaka relationship (or bond) between the satraps and the king. Her study of the term bandaka extends to texts in Egyptian Aramaic and Bactrian Aramaic. Similarly, Mitchell suggests, bandaka resonates in the Hebrew Bible through expressions such as “my servant,” in Zechariah, Malachi, and Deutero-Isaiah. Her translation of covenantal verses in these biblical texts pivots on the Persian concept of bandaka as it has influenced Judean texts during and after the exile. Thomas Bolin explores another Achaemenid analogue to covenant, the rights and responsibilities of the Persian king and his subjects. Bolin’s essay on Qohelet focuses on the biblical text’s description of the divinehuman relationship in order to find an idea of covenant adapted to fit Persian dominated realities. He concludes that as with the terms of the Great King’s rule, the divine-human relationship for Qohelet requires obligations on the part of the people, while complete divine freedom and sovereignty are preserved.

The Pentateuch Jakob Wöhrle’s essay considers the priestly covenants articulated in Genesis as a window on the Persian period. Wöhrle focuses on the specific contents of covenants associated with Noah, Abraham, and Jacob, with attention to the linkage between these pacts and their political implications. The study follows the figure of Esau as one who is associated with but ultimately not included in the covenantal promises of land that God makes to Abraham. Key texts in the analysis are Genesis 17, 24, 28, and 36. Wöhrle demonstrates that, although Esau is excluded from the promise of land extended to Abraham, Jacob’s twin brother is nonetheless a beneficiary of the promise made to Noah and all humanity, the promise to be fruitful and to multiply. Accordingly, Esau recognizes Jacob’s exclusive right to the land and retreats into separate territories where he and his line are established as a people unto itself, Edom (Gen 36:8). Wöhrle concludes that Esau’s emergence as a separate nation is consistent with the Persian idea of an empire structured into individual nations with their respective identities.

8

Introduction

Andreas Schüle addresses the covenant in Exod 31:16. Here, one finds both the term ‫“( ברית עולם‬eternal covenant”) and the notion of a sign of the covenant, which are characteristic of Genesis 9 and 17 as the two signature texts of P’s covenantal theology. However, the eternal covenant of Exodus 31 differs from Genesis 9 and 17 in one particular detail, namely, that Sabbath observance imposes a stronger covenantal requirement on Israel, which means that the covenant, in spite of its eternal nature, could be broken. That is, this “eternal covenant” imposes a condition on Israel that seems to contradict P’s alleged understanding of covenant as a unilateral divine promise, per the analysis of Walther Zimmerli. While some explain this perplexity by arguing that all of Exod 31:12–17 is a later addition to the P Grundschrift, Schüle notes that scholars have also entertained the idea that at least parts of this passage should be assigned to P (or Ps) and thus be considered an integral part of its covenantal theology. Employing this approach, Schüle identifies Exod 31:12–17 with P and concludes that covenant in P is best understood as a dynamic concept pointing toward the Sinai revelation given to Israel as God’s chosen people. In order to compare and contrast P’s concept of covenant with other exilic and postexilic sources, namely, the major prophets Ezekiel, Isaiah and Jeremiah, Schüle focuses on the ‫ברית עולם‬. Against the backdrop of these prophetic texts, the connection between the Sinai events and the eternal covenant in Exod 31:12–17 is substantial. If one associates Exod 31:16–17 with P, it makes P a participant in the exilic and postexilic conversation about the covenantal significance of the Sinai Torah. Wolfgang Oswald reads the Moutain-of-God pericope in Exodus from a diachronic perspective with an eye to the covenants in Exodus 24 and 34. Employing literary criticism to isolate different compositional layers within the text, he finds a pre-Deuteronomistic layer, which contains the Mountain-of-God narrative, and a Deuteronomistic layer, which is considered part of the Deuteronomistic History extending into the first five books. The concept of covenant attested in Exod 19:5, 24:7–8 reflects in all three instances the Deuteronomistic layer, and Oswald thus concludes that the covenant motif in this portion of Exodus is not foundational to the text, nor is it the catalyst for the other textual elements. The covenant motif, rather, has a reinforcing function and is connected to the basic event of law-giving. Turning to Exod 34:11–26, Oswald observes that there are repetitions of formulations found in the Covenant Code, and that these passages contain further correspondences with Deuteronomistic texts. This evidence suggests that the list of stipulations and the covenant associated with it (34:27) also belong to the Deuteronomistic stratum of the Pentateuch. By means of the two Deuteronomistic narratives in Exo-

Introduction

9

dus, the biblical authors apply two different literary strategies to achieve the same goal, namely, the replacement of the Covenant Code by the law of Deuteronomy. Oswald conjectures that the Deuteronomistic editorial work done in Exodus 19–24 occurred in the Neo-Babylonian period, during the attempt to establish a semi-autonomous polity in postmonarchic Judah. The subsequent Deuteronomistic account, Exod 34:11–26, was composed later in the Persian period when society had become more developed with an elaborate system of public offices and a focus on covenant theology. Exodus 34 supplies the point of departure for Thomas Hieke’s essay on covenant in Leviticus 26. Hieke identifies a formula of grace in Exod 34:6–7: Israel is called to live according to God’s commandments and failing to do so or willingly neglecting God’s torah has consequences. But the punishment does not lead necessarily to extinction; God’s mercy and God’s remembrance of the covenant make a new beginning possible. This interplay of admonition and redemption explains how Israel survived the catastrophe of 587 b.c.e., and the same dynamic of grace is recounted in Lev 26:40–45, which depicts the impact of the Exile but factors in redemption. In the Leviticus passage, the concept of redemption that results from the experiences of the Exile and the new beginning in the Persian period is integrated into the revelation at Mount Sinai in order to locate the paradigm of failure, punishment, forgiveness, and new beginning at the roots of Israel’s religion. Hieke concludes that in Leviticus 26 the idea of covenant serves as an anchor and a Rettungsschirm (emergency parachute) to bridge the doom of destruction and exile. In a discrete discussion, Hieke reconciles the apparent inevitability of covenantal redemption with human free will and concludes that Leviticus portrays God as optimistic enough to presume that the people will voluntarily repent and return to God’s commandments. To illustrate, he analyzes Lev 26:42–45 as a text structured according to a palindromic inclusio. As for 26:45, which remarkably states: “I will remember in their favor the covenant with their ancestors whom I brought out of the land of Egypt,” Hieke’s commentary clarifies that the divergent covenantal references to ancestors and Egypt indicate that there is only one covenant between God and human beings but with individual accentuations.

The Prophets The Former Prophets In an overarching essay on the Former Prophets, Ehud Ben Zvi describes covenant as the memory of core divine promises made in the past

10

Introduction

but still current in an ancient society. In the Yehud of the Persian period, literati and especially historiographers within this group focused on the breaking of divine promises, as in 1 Sam 2:30, in which Yhwh’s promise to Eli’s priestly family is recalled but then revoked. 1 Sam 2:30, Ben Zvi maintains, was an interpretive key for negotiating the meaning of divine promises and construing God’s obligation to keep and fulfill divine promises. The Davidic promise exemplified an unfulfilled assurance that could be renegotiated in different ways; in Kings, it is because of certain sins that the promise is renegotiated, but in Chronicles it is because Yhwh decides to divide the kingdom during a pious period. Ben Zvi notes that, while the promise of David was renegotiated variously and often, much less negotiation occurred around the promises associated with Yhwh’s choice of Israel and Jerusalem. In general, these promises were remembered as permanent and enduring. Ben Zvi concludes that the community in Yehud during the Persian and early Hellenistic periods construed and remembered the various covenantal promises in a range of ways: as breakable, enduring, of short term value, fulfilled, partially fulfilled, not fulfilled, made in good faith and in bad faith. Similarly focused on the Deuteronomistic History, Cynthia Edenburg’s essay explores the complex relationship between the concepts of covenant and connubium in the Persian period. After maintaining that the idea of covenant initially meant treaty and loyalty oath to the Deuteronomistic scribes in the Neo-Assyrian period, Edenburg follows those scholars who hold that in the Neo-Babylonian period, the concept of ‫ ברית‬was theologized in order to provide an explanation for the disaster that befell the kingdom of Judah. A further shift occurred in the Persian period, when Yhwh was no longer viewed as the overlord of Israel, but as the universal king who rules the world and all peoples within it by means of his earthly representative, the Persian king whose dominion embraced practically all lands. Additional changes in the social and political makeup of Persianperiod Yehud led to a decisive development: applying the concept of covenant to connubium and marital relations. According to Edenburg, the application of the idea of covenant or ‫ ברית‬to marital relations was not grounded in the marital institution of the times and was rather a conceptual (or intellectual) innovation. To make the point, Edenburg discusses two groups of texts. With the first group (Exod 23:20–33, 34:10–16, Deut 7:1–6), the concept of ‫ ברית‬has been reinterpreted within the framework of prohibiting connubium, which these authors consider to be the very essence of alliance. The second group comprises Josh 2:6–22; 9:6–7, 11, 15–16, texts that recognize the special connubial status of groups

Introduction

11

within the “peoples of the land.” These texts in Joshua recognize that the native inhabitants of Yehud do in fact revere Yhwh and as such are members­of the Yhwh community. Both groups of texts indicate that with the transition to the Persian period, the changed circumstances in both the international sphere and within Yehud called for reinterpreting the covenant idea so that the Deuteronomistic History would be remain relevant to a contemporary audience. Reinhard Achenbach’s essay builds on the principle that the measure of authorized and non-authorized prophecy spoken in the name of Yhwh must stand in a continuous tradition with the words of Moses. On this basis, he explores underlying affinities between the law on the prophets in Deuteronomy 18 and the prophetic tradition in Jeremiah as well as in other books. Achenbach notes that Deut 18:15–22 connects a variety of prophetic elements with a divine revelation rooted in the Mosaic narrative, thereby subjecting prophecy to the exercise of scribal interpretation. A parallel example of this phenomenon is found in Jeremiah 11, where Jeremiah applies the covenantal texts and theology of Deuteronomy to the generation in danger and confirms that this generation could again become the people of Yhwh in the full sense of the word if their members are prepared to obey the laws of Horeb and of Deuteronomy. In essence, the redactor of Jeremiah 11 applies the same paradigm as that created in Deuteronomy 18, and the covenant theology of Jeremiah 11 corresponds to that of Deuteronomy 18. Achenbach concludes that Deuteronomy 18 develops the perspective of an oral torah under the control of scribes who follow the prophet who “speaks in the name of the Yhwh.” In this manner, the non-Mosaic oral torah of the Prophets (for example, Jeremiah 11) becomes the unwritten Text of the Covenant. Achenbach’s focus on Jeremiah provides a segue to the next section of the volume on the latter prophets. The Latter Prophets The section on the latter prophets begins with Isaiah. J. Todd Hibbard studies Isa 24:5, which oddly reports that the earth’s inhabitants have broken the eternal covenant. Hibbard locates two other verses in Isaiah that speak of the ‫ברית עולם‬, Isa 55:3 and 61:8, both of which are clearly more sanguine about the prospects of an eternal covenant. Isaiah 55 and 61 contain images of reconstruction, in contrast to the destruction in Isaiah 24. Hibbard suggests that the inclusion of these three texts in Isaiah reflects a discussion about the ‫ ברית עולם‬that did not lead to unequivocal conclusions. Rather, the different Isaian writers helped to create a tapestry

12

Introduction

in which competing ideas about covenant and the community were allowed to exist in an intertextual space. A major conclusion of Hibbard is that Isaiah 24 tempers the enthusiasm about the ‫ ברית עולם‬expressed elsewhere in the postexilic portions of Isaiah (Isa 55:3, 61:8) to indicate that the establishment of the perpetual covenant must be balanced by the possibility of its abrogation. The balance, moreover, is understood and articulated in Isaianic terms; Isaiah 24 takes the view that if covenant obligations and participation in the temple community are open to all (Isa 56:3–8; 66:18–21), breaking the covenant must be expressed in international terms and possess a worldwide dimension. Like the book of Isaiah, the Jeremiah corpus manifests a diversity of covenantal images. Dalit Rom-Shiloni examines the several conceptions of covenant found in Jeremiah as these reflect the destruction and exile of the sixth century b.c.e. She delineates a spectrum: five distinct perceptions in Jeremiah regarding the present and future state of God’s covenantal relationship with humanity. The covenants are based on political and marital metaphors, with the political more numerous and arguably more decisive. Among other things, the political metaphors inform the prophet’s theodicy. That is, the political metaphors clarify that throughout destruction and exile, God’s role has been that of the sovereign who punishes the rebellious people. But God has not withdrawn from the covenant, and thus retains the royal prerogative to reinstitute the covenant relationship. Rom-Shiloni further concludes that the “new covenant,” like many of the references to covenant in Jeremiah, is the result of a theological choice to place one covenantal option over another. Her essay engages diverse parts of Jeremiah and focuses on various metaphors in the book. Jeremiah is also the subject of Matthew Sjöberg’s essay, which examines the way in which the redactor who composed (MT) Jer 33:14–26 bases these oracles on older Jeremianic, Deuteronomistic, and covenantal passages. In documenting the redactor’s dependence on source material, Sjöberg shows how he at times uses language reminiscent of the Davidic covenant described in Kings and at other times recalls the Abrahamic covenant’s references to stars and seeds in Genesis. Sjöberg focuses on the perpetual covenants with the Levites and the Davidic line described in Jer 33:19–26. In these verses, unconditional promises to the Levitical priesthood are set alongside similar promises to the Davidic monarchy. By speaking of these promises as covenants, the redactor may be reflecting a situation in which the priesthood was understood to be nearly as important in concept as the monarchy. Sjöberg concludes that these oracles from a redactor of Jeremiah point to a time of composition early in the Persian

Introduction

13

period when the Levitical authorities held conditional power, hopes remained for a renewal of Davidic leadership. In addition to the discussion found in Jeremiah, Malachi also makes reference to a Levitical covenant, the covenant of Levi (Mal 2:4–5). To analyze this covenant, Elie Assis undertakes a study of Mal 1:6–2:9, an oracle that reproaches the priests. Assis argues that the oracle’s two constitutive parts (1:6–14 and 2:1–9) are interdependent; both capture a part of the relationship between the people and God. In the first oracle, the priests serve as cultic representatives of the people before God. In the second oracle, the priests function as representatives of God to the people, guiding them in the way of the and turning them back from iniquity. The prophet rebukes the priests for failures in both of their roles. In Assis’s analysis, the author uses the locution ‫ לוי ברית‬or “the covenant of Levi” (2:4–5) to define the framework of the priests’ obligation. Because the prophet holds the priests doubly responsible for maintaining the relationship between the people and God, he also designates the priests’ role as a ‫ברית‬. Assis suggests that the term “covenant of Levi” should not be understood as a concept formulated in Malachi, but rather as an associative term coined for rhetorical purposes. Moreover, the covenant of Levi is linked to the larger concept of covenant around which the book of Malachi as a whole is structured. One of Malachi’s main concerns is to counter the people’s perception that they are no longer the people of God, an idea that led to a dilution of national and religious identity, an adoption of a universalistic outlook, and a positive approach toward intermarriage. The prophet argues that the covenantal relationship between God and the people is still valid and obligates both God and the people. The criticism regarding sacrifices is part of the broader theme on which the book is based: the continued validity of the covenant between the people and God. A second essay on Malachi, by Christine Mitchell, focuses on Persian discourse and concepts, in particular that of the bandaka. Noting that the prototypical parallel to biblical covenants, the vassal treaty, is absent from Persian thought, Mitchell argues that the closest analogue under the Achaemenids to a system of vassals and overlords is the bandaka relationship (or bond) between the satraps and the king. Mitchell undertakes an extensive study of the term bandaka, including where the term may have entered into the Egyptian Aramaic texts and the Bactrian Aramaic texts. Similarly, Mitchell suggests, bandaka resonates in the Hebrew Bible through expressions such as “my servant,” and when ‫ עבד‬in Haggai–­ Zechariah 1–8 is read as bandaka, Achaemenid ideas regarding the Persian king’s relationships with his subjects come into focus. Turning to Malachi,

14

Introduction

Mitchell considers Mal 3:1, the appearance of the messenger of the covenant. In this instance, Malachi’s idea of covenant reverses the benificent bandaka type of relationship and repudiates, in fact, Achaemenid constructs of relationship. Mitchell concludes that the pro-Persian rhetoric of Deutero-Isaiah (Isaiah 42) has become subtly anti-Persian (Isaiah 49) and actively anti-Persian in Mal 3:1; the servant/messenger has been redesignated from Cyrus to Israel to Levi. The Levite has taken the place of the Persian king. James Nogalski investigates covenant in Joel through the lens of Deuteronomy and various Deuteronomistic texts. He notes that the core material in Deuteronomy 28–32 would have been in place by the first half of the fourth century, a standard dating for the compilation of Joel. His focus is Joel 1, where drought, locusts, enemy attack, and heat combine to portray the actualization of a curse that may be traced back to the covenant stipulations in passages of Deuteronomy. Joel, Deuteronomy, and 1 Kings all demonstrate a clear sense of cause-and-effect theology related to covenant fidelity, but they do so from very different literary locations and for different rhetorical purposes. Joel 1 presumes the covenant curse is in effect, and consequently the people must respond before Yhwh will remove the curses. The prophet assumes guilt on the part of the people and calls for restoration through a cultic and spiritual response of repentance. John Kessler’s essay takes as its focus the beginning of the book of Haggai, specifically the list of misfortunes visited on Jerusalemites because they have not yet rebuilt the temple. Noting how the misfortunes of Hag 1:3–11 parallel curses enumerated in Deuteronomy 28 and Leviticus 26, Kessler suggests that neglect of the temple in Haggai has been construed as an offense within Israel’s broader relationship to Yhwh. As such, the offense implies a connection between the fault for which punishment is sent and the covenant ratified at Sinai. Kessler, however, does not conclude that temple reconstruction has simply been integrated into the stipulations of the Sinai covenant and taken its place alongside its other requirements. The events of Hag 1:3–11, rather, conform to a pattern in which specific sins that are committed within a broader relationship result in specific­consequences. Although serious, these specific transgressions do not threaten the broader, covenantal relationship at its core. In the case of such limitedscale misdeeds, the point is to draw attention to the specific fault and indicate a specific remedy. Kessler terms this a pattern of “violation in covenant” (as opposed to a “violation of covenant,” whose greater magnitude may rupture the bond between parties) and finds another example in 1 Kgs 8:14–61, where human misfortune is an effect of divine disapproval. The notion of “violation in covenant” explains how Haggai locates temple

Introduction

15

reconstruction within the context of the existing divine-human relationship that was established at Sinai. There is a parallel to Kessler’s bipartite model of the Sinai covenant during the Postexilic Period in Richard Bautch’s study of the enigmatic shepherd’s allegory in Zech 11:4–17. Bautch focuses on the shepherd breaking his covenant (Zech 11:10), a pact that has two dimensions, one of which expresses the Israelite covenant par excellence, the Mosaic or Sinaitic covenant, and the other comprising the particular directives or ‫ מצות‬invoked to galvanize the shepherd’s community around his leadership. Bautch describes the covenant as mixed in that it bears the imprint of Sinai, while highlighting specific directives that augment the Sinai pact. By following these directives, a community or group forges its collective identity. Although the directives in Zechariah 11 are difficult to discern in detail, the writer may be drawing on proverbial material in designating the shepherd’s covenant as ‫ נעם‬or pleasantness, one of the many benefits of wisdom. In Proverbs, the person who lives in accord with wisdom receives the many benefits of a wisely constructed world, which stands in sharp contrast to the anarchic world of Zechariah 11. Bautch’s conclusion combines the material in Zechariah 11 with other parts of Deutero-Zechariah; there is a positive reference to covenant early in 9:11, which is followed by the disappointment of the broken covenant in 11:10. Later, however, the redactor indicates a renewed and more durable covenant for the future in 13:7–9. Through these last two references, the redactor of Zechariah is both rejecting covenant and ultimately restoring it.

The Writings Psalms and Wisdom Literature Covenant is a prevailing motif in the psalms, including those composed or redacted in the Persian period. Two essays explore these texts and their covenantal coloring. William Bellinger begins his essay with methodological considerations about dating texts such as Psalm 137, which is set in Babylon and widely assumed to have been written there. Bellinger shows that the text need not be Neo-Babylonian in date and may be a retrospective from the Postexilic (or Persian) Period. Similarly, Psalms 44, 74, 79, and 89 may come from the Persian period, either in the sense that the text was produced then or that its section of the Hebrew Psalter, designated as Book III, was arranged then. The four psalms in question are laments, which Bellinger characterizes as the human side of the covenantal dialogue with God. He shows how covenant is referred to throughout these lament psalms, explicitly (44:18, 89:4–5) and at times implicitly (74:19–20,

16

Introduction

79:8–9), with both the covenant of Sinai and the Davidic covenant invoked. The covenant-laden laments suggest to Bellinger that already in Book III of the Psalter the biblical writers are responding to the fall of the Davidic kingdom. Whereas the response is generally thought to begin with Book IV, psalms 74, 77 and 79 and indeed Book III as a whole may relate to the Persian period in that these psalms see a way forward in exile and its aftermath through the exercise of protest in the lament tradition. Carol Dempsey’s essay complements that of Bellinger as it explores Book IV of the Psalter with attention to the theme of covenant. She documents how Psalms 103, 105 and 106 appeal to the Abrahamic, Sinaitic, and Davidic covenants, sometimes with a single psalm citing multiple covenants. She includes Psalm 132 in her study, after noting that it is part of Book V. The case of Psalm 103 is particularly interesting. Dempsey tracks the psalm’s many allusions to the exodus tradition and explores intertextuality between the psalm and Exod 34:6–7. Details in the psalm’s presentation of the Sinai covenant lead Dempsey to date the text to the Persian period, when it had a theological function: to remind the community that the God of Israel who remained faithful to it in the past will remain faithful in the days of restructuring after the exile. Lament is also the focus of Jamie Grant’s essay on covenant in Job. Grant argues that the Hebrew concept of lament, which is prominent in wisdom texts, cannot be understood apart from its covenantal underpinnings, and that in the case of the suffering Job, the fact that Job speaks to God rather than about God is evidence that Job is making the effort to cling to his covenantal relationship with God. Grant readily acknowledges both that Job is a non-‫ ברית‬text and that the language of covenant is largely absent from the work. Nevertheless, he shows that the concept of covenant is essential for the argument of the book to make sense. That is, the crux interpretum of Job is whether the protagonist will turn aside from his relationship with God or not. Grant examines the book’s prologue, Job’s subsequent exchanges with his three friends, Job’s self-defense in chap. 29, and finally God’s address to Job and Job’s response. Thus, the evidence adduced about lament and covenantal relationship in Job is comprehensive, not selective, and Grant incorporates ancient Near Eastern comparative evidence to support his main point. In terms of the history of scholarship, Grant documents the 20th-century trend to disassociate covenant from wisdom literature and engages the work of Walther Zimmerli, Roland Murphy, and James Crenshaw as a counterpoint to his argument that the concept of covenant is embedded within the book of Job. Thomas Bolin’s essay similarly departs from the studies of Zimmerli and Crenshaw, in so far as they question Qohelet’s theological relationship to

Introduction

17

the rest of the biblical corpus. Bolin challenges Zimmerli’s claim that because Qohelet exhibits no evidence of the link between faith and history, it contains no idea of covenant. Rather, Bolin demonstrates that Qohelet expresses the divine-human relationship, and so covenant, along the lines of the Great King’s rule as it is understood in Achaemenid royal ideology. That is, the Persian religious system contains no reciprocal and reinforcing logic of “I will be your God, and you will be my people.” Rather, Bolin shows, the operative model drawn from politics assigns to the sovereign unconditional and absolute freedom, while imposing a range of obligations on the people. Bolin concludes that making sense of Qohelet is a matter of seeing in this biblical book evidence of a refined orthodoxy for the new world of Persian period politics and economics. Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles The covenant in Ezra 10:3 to impose divorce on Judeans who have married “the peoples of the land” is analyzed by Douglas Nykolaishen, who highlights the narrator’s function in the text. Whereas the character­ Shecaniah, in proposing divorce, seeks only a solemn agreement to take action on a specific issue, the narrator wished to portray the event as something greater, a renewal of a divine covenant. Toward that end, the narrator added to Ezra 9–10 additional elements such as a temple setting (9:1, 10:5), a historical recital (9:6–15), a confession of sin (10:2), and the swearing of an oath (10:5, 9). Cumulatively, these elements constitute a covenant renewal, albeit an unusual renewal inasmuch as the narrative of Ezra 9–10 has the effect of highlighting one feature of the divine covenant with God, namely, the prohibition of mixed marriage proposed by Shecaniah. 6 In Ezra 10, the indications of whether the people embrace forced divorce and so renew the covenant are mixed at best, and the episode’s ending is uncertain. In Nykolaishen’s analysis, the covenantal narrative of Ezra 10 opens positively as if the community were about to realize in full the prophetic ideals of right living (as expressed in Jeremiah 34), but that optimism gives way to a more sober assessment, namely, that the community did not completely achieve the hopes associated with covenant renewal in Jeremiah and in the prophets generally. Nykolaishen suggests that in the Persian period the prophetic vision of a future ideal covenant between Yhwh and Israel was seen as a means by which the current state 6.  The practice of approaching covenant through a single issue, such as forced divorce in Ezra 10, extends a pattern observed in Haggai and Zechariah. The respective essays of Kessler and Bautch in this volume highlight the singular concerns of temple rebuilding in Haggai and living by the ideals of wisdom in Zechariah.

18

Introduction

of the community of Yehud could be evaluated, and in the case of Ezra– Nehemiah, this evaluation admitted of degrees. In his essay on covenant and Chronicles, Louis Jonker observes that the phrase “the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord” appears 12 times in Chronicles and that in all the cases where this phrase has a parallel in the Vorlage in 2 Samuel, the word “covenant” has been inserted in the phrase. This editorial practice, Jonker notes, has been the subject of debate, and after presenting the differing views of Gary Knoppers, Sabine van den Eynde, Ralph Klein, and Tamara Eskenazi, Jonkers examines for himself the instances of the phrase in Chronicles. His focus is 1 Chronicles 15–16, a text that contains half of the appearances of the phrase “the Ark of the covenant of Yhwh” as it concludes the thematic unit 1 Chronicles 13–16 (David’s bringing the Ark to Jerusalem). Jonker’s analysis of these chapters unveils a complex network of textual relations within which the expression “the Ark of the covenant of Yhwh” is used. The Chronicler articulates this phrase with special attention to (1) the divine presence, (2) David’s kingship, (3) the covenant with the ancestors, (4) the eternal covenant, and (5) the privileged role of the Levites. In concluding, Jonker relates the Chronicler’s Ark narrative and his prominent usage of covenant terminology to the process of identity negotiation in the late Persian era, wherein the Chronicler effects both inner-group and intergroup categorization. Mark Boda’s essay examines four texts in Chronicles, which employ the term ‫ ברית‬and are set in the post-Solomonic phase of Judahite history: the reigns of Asa (2 Chronicles 15), Joash/Jehoaida (2 Chronicles 23), Hezekiah (2 Chronicles 29), and finally Josiah (2 Chronicles 34). Across the four royal accounts, Boda identifies the following similarities: (1) the covenants are dominated by human participants; Yhwh is not a party to the covenant and is placed at a step removed from the covenantal arrangement (in some cases Yhwh is a witness but not a partner). (2) Covenant inevitably involves renewal of the cult, such as cleansing the temple or resuming sacrificial worship. On the basis of these findings, Boda concludes that Chronicles reflects a shift to unilateral covenants limited to human origin as part of a more general shift away from covenant as an articulation of the relationship between Yhwh and the people. In this vein, Chronicles aligns covenants not with the Sinai traditions but more typically with the traditions of the patriarchs or the Davidic family, both of which evoke kinship. In Boda’s final analysis, the kinship dimension is preeminent because late-Persian-period Yehud was an amalgamation of agnatic clans, each of which was encouraged to find its identity within a larger community gathered around the temple in Jerusalem.

Introduction

19

Covenant in the Persian Period: From Genesis to Chronicles has been a project that spanned several years. In addition to the contributors to this volume, there are others who supported the project significantly and deserve thanks. These include Gloria White, the director of Sponsored Programs at St. Edward’s University, and her colleague Allison McKissack Rasp. Gloria and Allison provided crucial backing in the project’s early phase. Two deans at St. Edward’s University, Louis Brusatti and Sharon Nell, have sustained that support and are in our debt as well. At Eisenbrauns, Jim Eisenbraun and Amy Becker have most ably directed the project, and it has been a pleasure to work with them and their editorial staff. Finally, we would like to thank our wives, Kelley Coblentz Bautch and Laura Lunger Knoppers, for their loving support. Scholars themselves, Kelley and Laura were with us each step of the endeavor, and for this our gratitude is beyond words.

Bibliography Bautch, Richard J. 2009 Glory and Power, Ritual and Relationship: The Sinai Covenant in the Postexilic Period. Library of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 471. New York / London: T. & T. Clark. Eichrodt, Walther 1957 Theologie des Alten Testaments. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Klotz. Hillers, Delbert 1969 Covenant: The History of a Biblical Idea. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Knoppers, Gary N. 1996 Ancient Near Eastern Royal Grants and the Davidic Covenant: A Parallel­? Journal of the American Oriental Society 166: 670–97. McCarthy, Dennis 1978 Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents and in the Old Testament. 2nd ed. Analecta Biblica 21a. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Mendenhall, George E., and Herion, Gary A. 1992 Covenant. Pp. 1179–1202 in vol. 1 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday. Perlitt, Lothar 1969 Bundestheologie im Alten Testament. Wissenschaftlische Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 36. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Van Seters, John 1975 Abraham in History and Tradition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Weinfeld, Moshe 1970 The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East. Journal of the American Oriental Society 90:184–203.

Abraham amidst the Nations The Priestly Concept of Covenant and the Persian Imperial Ideology Jakob Wöhrle Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg

Introduction It is one of the well-known peculiarities of the Priestly passages of the Pentateuch that these passages present a twofold covenant. In Gen 9:8–17, after the flood, God establishes a covenant with Noah and all humankind, indeed with all living beings. In this covenant, he gives them the promise that no flood shall again cover the earth. In Genesis 17, God establishes a covenant with Abraham, in which he promises fruitfulness and multiplication, his special contribution to Abraham and Abraham’s descendants, as well as the land of Canaan. In the wake of the study by Walter Zimmerli (1960), the significance of the Priestly concept of covenant is often seen in the fact that both the Noah and the Abraham covenants are unilaterally established by God and not contingent on any human condition or contribution. Additionally, both the Noah and the Abraham covenants are depicted as everlasting covenants. The Priestly work thus presents a twofold covenant of grace. 1 According to Zimmerli, the Priestly concept of covenant is to be understood against the background of the exile. The experience of exile questioned the Sinaitic covenant, which is connected with the promulgation of the law. The exile revealed that the people did not follow the law as covenantal obligation. Thus, when the Priestly authors, in exilic or postexilic times, wrote their redraft of Israel’s foundational history, they detached the covenant from Sinai, they transferred it to the primeval and the ancestors’ history, and they depicted it as a pure covenant of grace. With this 1.  Zimmerli’s view on the Priestly concept of covenant has been adopted, for example, by Lohfink 1978: 223–24; Klein 1981: 61–62; Zenger 1983: 44–45; Carr 1996: 128; Ska 2006: 190; Nihan 2009: 91–103. See, however, also the critical remarks of Dequeker 1989: 118.

23

24

Jakob Wöhrle

concept, the Priestly authors gave Israel’s relationship to God a new foundation, independent from any human condition. This classical view of the Priestly concept of covenant is surely important. It can explain the particular place of the Priestly covenants within the composition of the Pentateuch, and it can explain the Priestly presentation of one-sidedly established, unconditional covenants. The problem with this view, however, is that in basing its conclusions on generic features of the Priestly covenants, such as their being unilaterally and unconditionally established, it tends to leave aside the specific contents of these covenants. This essay will thus focus on these specific contents and especially on the political idea behind the Priestly concept of covenant. It will treat Noah’s covenant in Genesis 9, Abraham’s covenant in Genesis 17, the further references to the covenant within the Jacob story, and, finally, common features between the Priestly concept of covenant and the Persian imperial ideology.

God’s Covenant with Noah in Genesis 9 God’s covenant with Noah stands at the end of the Priestly account of creation and flood. It is the climax of the Priestly primeval history. At the beginning of the primeval history, the Priestly creation account in Gen 1:1–2:4a describes how God transforms the world from an uninhabitable place to an inhabitable place. 2 According to Gen 1:2, before God’s act of creation, the earth has been ‫תהו ובהו‬. This term does not, as still often assumed, designate a pre-creational state of chaos. 3 Nor does it designate a pre-creational state of nothingness (Schmidt 1973: 78–80; Westermann 1974: 143–44; Bauks 1997: 111–18; etc.). In other parts of the Hebrew Bible, the term ‫ תהו‬designates the conditions in the desert or the conditions within a city destroyed and desolated by war (Deut 32:10; 1 Sam 12:21; Isa 24:10; 34:11; Job 6:18; 12:24). The phrase ‫ תהו ובהו‬thus describes the pre-creational earth as a barren, uninhabitable place. 4 The subsequent description of God’s creation in Gen 1:3–27 shows how God creates out of this barren and uninhabitable place an inhabitable 2.  For the following considerations on the Priestly creation account cf. especially Steck 1981: 199–223; Zenger 1983: 81–84. 3. Among the older approaches, this interpretation of ‫ תהו ובהו‬was held, for example, by Gunkel 1910: 103–4 and von Rad 1972: 30, and in recent times it is still expressed by Wenham 1987: 15–16; Sarna 1989: 6; Wyatt 1993: 545; and Görg 1995: 560–62. For the interpretation of ‫ תהו ובהו‬in ancient and medieval literature, see Börner-Klein 1993. 4.  Thus already Jacob 1934: 26; Steck 1981: 232–33; Tsumura 1994: 310–28; Schüle 2009: 34; and Seebass 2009: 66.

Abraham amidst the Nations

25

place. On the first three days, he establishes orders of time and space. He differentiates between day and night, he separates the upper waters and the lower waters, and he separates sea and dry land. With these orders, God prepares the basis for life on earth. On the subsequent three days, God creates in the same sequence the entities associated with the orders of the first three days. He creates heavenly bodies, animals of the air and sea, animals of the land and humanity. 5 At the end of the creation account God blesses humanity. According to Gen 1:28, they shall be fruitful, they shall multiply and fill the earth (‫פרה‬, ‫רבה‬, ‫)מלא את־הארץ‬. Humanity shall take the earth, which is now an inhabitable place, and they shall fill this place with life. The subsequent Priestly flood story describes how God, because of the corruption on the earth, reverses his creational acts. 6 According to Gen 7:11, he opens the fountains of the great deep and the windows of heaven. Thus, he retracts the separation of the upper and the lower waters, 7 and with this, he retracts the creational order by which the earth had been transformed from an uninhabitable to an inhabitable place. At the end of the flood story, in Gen 9:8–17, God makes his covenant with Noah. 8 The central promise of this covenant stands in Gen 9:11: I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.

God’s covenant with Noah, designated in Gen 9:12, 16 as an “everlasting covenant” (‫)ברית עולם‬, gives the inviolable promise that no flood shall ever come on the earth again and destroy all living beings. Based on the aforementioned considerations, this promise to Noah means that the earth shall be and remain an inhabitable place. Yet, as the repetition of the creation promise in Gen 9:1, 7 shows, the earth shall be and remain a place where all humans can be fruitful and multiply and which they can fill with life (‫פרה‬, ‫רבה‬, ‫)מלא‬. The Priestly covenant with Noah thus gives humanity the inviolable promise that the earth will always be an inhabitable place, in which they 5.  For this structure of the Priestly creation account, see, with differences regarding the details, Steck 1981: 211–13; Zenger 1983: 71–80; Schüle 2009: 30; Wöhrle 2009: 178–79. 6.  See, for example, Zenger 1983: 114; Schüle 2006: 264–65. 7.  Gunkel 1910: 144: “was Gott bei der Schöpfung geschieden, die Wasser oben und unten, stürzten jetzt wieder zusammen.” See also Jacob 1934: 205–6; von Rad 1972: 96; Westermann 1974: 583; and Schüle 2009: 126. 8.  For the intention of Gen 9:8–17 see, for example, Westermann 1974: 629–36; Sarna 1989: 62–63; Baumgart 1999: 321–34; Schüle 2009: 134–36.

26

Jakob Wöhrle

can blossom and develop. With Noah’s covenant, it remains open, however, as to how humanity shall inhabit the earth. Especially, it remains open as to how the members of different nations, into which humanity will divide after Noah, shall co-inhabit the earth. And exactly this is the subject of the second Priestly covenant, the covenant with Abraham.

God’s Covenant with Abraham in Genesis 17 Within the Priestly account of God’s covenant with Abraham in Genesis 17, at first, Gen 17:1–8 describes how God appears to Abraham and makes a covenant with him. Genesis 17:9–14 claims circumcision as the sign of this covenant. Genesis 17:15–22 announces the birth of Isaac and gives promises to Isaac as well as to Abraham’s firstborn son Ishmael. Gen 17:23–27 reports that God leaves Abraham and that Abraham, his son Ishmael, and the slaves of the house are circumcised. Concerning the Priestly version of Abraham’s covenant it is, at first, noteworthy that the law of circumcision in Gen 17:9–14 is a secondary, late-Priestly addition. 9 This assumption can be corroborated by several arguments. First, according to Gen 17:2–8 the covenant between God and Abraham is not subject to any condition. The law of circumcision, however, sets this covenant—or rather the individual acquirement of this covenant—under the condition of circumcision. Additionally, Gen 17:2–8 applies the covenant exclusively to Abraham and his descendants. But the law of circumcision also requires the circumcision of the slaves of the house. Thus, according to Gen 17:9–14 not only Abraham and his descendants but a larger group of people get a share in the covenant. Finally, it is noteworthy that in Gen 17:9–14 circumcision as the sign of Abraham’s covenant fulfills a different function than the bow in the clouds as the sign of Noah’s covenant in Gen 9:12–17. In Gen 9:13, the bow in the clouds is a confirmative sign from God signaling the everlasting validity of the covenant. Circumcision, however, is not such a confirmative sign of the covenant’s validity. It rather signals the individual acquirement of the covenant. Thus, several arguments speak for the assumption that the law of circumcision in Gen 17:9–14 is a secondary addition. Accordingly, the same is true for Gen 17:23–27 describing the circumcision of Abraham, Ishmael, and the slaves of the house (Löhr 1924: 14; von Rad 1934: 23). 9.  Löhr 1924: 12–15; Grünwaldt 1992: 42–46; Levin 1993: 157; and Seebass 1997: 111–12. For a detailed analysis of Genesis 17, see Wöhrle 2011b: 74–78; 2012: 45–50.

Abraham amidst the Nations

27

The remaining primary layer in Gen 17:1–8, 15–22 starts in 17:1–8 with the following portrayal of God’s covenant with Abraham: 10 When Abram was ninety-nine years old, Yhwh appeared to Abram and said: I am El Shaddai. Walk before me and be blameless. And I will establish my covenant between me and you, and I will multiply you exceedingly (‫)רבה‬. And Abram fell on his face, and God talked to him and said: As for me, this is my covenant with you: You shall be a father of many nations. No longer shall your name be Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I will make you the father of many nations. I will make you exceedingly fruitful (‫ ;)פרה‬and I will make nations of you, and kings shall come from you. I will establish my covenant between me and you, and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant (‫)ברית עולם‬, to be God to you and your descendants after you. And I will give to you and to your descendants after you the land of your strangeness, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possesion (‫)אחזת עולם‬, and I will be their God. 11

God’s covenant with Abraham comprises several promises. According to Gen 17:2–6, Abraham shall multiply, he shall be fruitful, and he shall become a father of many nations. According to the subsequent verses 17:7–8 God promises that he will be the God of Abraham and his descendants and that he will give them the land of Canaan. Remarkably, as already seen by some scholars, the promises of fruitfulness and multiplication in 17:2–6 and the promises of being Abraham’s God and providing the land in 17:7–8 are given to different addressees. 12 Gen 17:2–6 is exclusively directed to Abraham. Gen 17:7–8, however, is directed to Abraham and his descendants. This observation goes with the fact that only the promises given in 17:7–8 are described as being longranging, generation-spanning promises. Not 17:2–6, but only 17:7–8 mention an “everlasting covenant” (‫)ברית עולם‬. Accordingly, 17:8 says that the land will be given as an “everlasting possession” (‫)אחזת עולם‬. Thus, Walter Groß (1978) is right when he speaks of two covenants in Genesis 17 (see also Jacob 1934: 419; Weimar 2007: 267–68). At first, Gen 17:2–6 presents a covenant with Abraham promising fruitfulness and multiplication. Different from this, Gen 17:7–8 presents a covenant with Abraham and his descendants promising that God will be their God and that they will possess the land of Canaan. 10.  For the following considerations, see also Wöhrle 2012: 208–14. 11.  For the Priestly description of the land of Canaan as a “land of strangeness,” see Wöhrle 2010: 210–12. 12.  This observation has already been made by Jacob 1934: 419; Groß 1978: 111; Blum 1984: 421–22; Ruppert 2002: 347; and Weimar 2007: 267–68.

28

Jakob Wöhrle

On this basis, it is remarkable that the promises of the first covenant, which is only applied to Abraham himself, comprise nothing else than the creation promise given to all humanity in Gen 1:28 (cf. 9:1, 7). 13 According to Gen 1:28, all humanity shall be fruitful and multiply (‫פרה‬, ‫)רבה‬. Exactly this promise is taken up in Gen 17:2–6 and explicitly applied to Abraham. Thus, the covenant between God and Abraham in Gen 17:2–6 renews and confirms the promise given to all humanity at creation. But it does not give a promise that is exclusively valid for Abraham. This means that the essential content of Abraham’s covenant stands in Gen 17:7–8 with its promises that God will be the God of Abraham and his descendants and that he will give them the land of Canaan. Only these promises are generation-spanning but everlasting promises. And only these promises are exclusively given to Abraham and his descendants. The Priestly narration in Genesis 17, however, does not only describe how God makes a covenant with Abraham and his descendants. It also addresses the relationship between the two sons of Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael. 14 Gen 17:19–21 gives the following promises: Then God said: Surely, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant (‫)ברית עולם‬, and with his descendants after him. And for Ishmael, too, I have heard you. Behold, I bless him and I will make him fruitful (‫ )פרה‬and I will multiply him exceedingly (‫)רבה‬. He shall beget twelve princes (‫)נׂשיא‬, and I will make him a great nation (‫גוי‬ ‫)גדול‬. But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this time next year.

Gen 17:19–21 gives different promises for Isaac and Ishmael. Isaac gets the promise that God will establish an everlasting covenant with him and his descendants. Ishmael gets the promise that God will make him fruitful and will multiply him, that he will beget 12 princes and become a great nation. Thus, Gen 17:19–21 states that the everlasting covenant (‫)ברית עולם‬ established with Abraham and his descendants is handed down to Isaac and his descendants. Based on the aforementioned considerations regarding the content of Abraham’s covenant, only Isaac and his descendants are under the promise that God will be their God and that God will give them the land of Canaan. 13.  Thus already Zimmerli 1976: 70; Westermann 1981: 315; Specht 1987: 406. 14.  A comprehensive treatment of the relationship between Isaac and Ishmael in Genesis 17, which is intensively discussed in current scholarship, is given in Wöhrle 2011a: 115–26.

Abraham amidst the Nations

29

According to Gen 17:19–21, Ishmael is not part of this covenant. 15 Thus, he has no share in the special relationship with the God of Abraham, and he has no right to the land of Canaan. This does not mean, however, that the Priestly version of Abraham’s covenant depicts Ishmael in a strictly negative light. On the contrary, because Gen 17:20 promises Ishmael fruitfulness and multiplication (‫פרה‬, ‫)רבה‬, it points out that the creation promise also applies to him. Even more, because Gen 17:20 promises that Ishmael will beget 12 princes (‫ )נׂשיא‬and that he will become a great nation (‫)גוי גדול‬, it legitimizes not only the existence but also the prosperity and the political integrity of the later Ishmaelite people. Against this background, it is remarkable that, within the subsequent Priestly passages of the ancestors’ account, Gen 25:12–18a mentions the descendants of Ishmael. 16 This passage refers to 12 sons of Ishmael, who are designated as 12 princes (‫ ;נׂשיא‬25:16). Additionally, it gives the dwelling place of Ishmael and his descendants: the region “from Havilah to Shur, east of Egypt” (25:18a). Gen 25:12–18a thus states that Ishmael and his descendants settled beyond the land of Canaan. This means they accepted the exclusive right 15.  In recent times, several scholars presumed that according to Genesis 17 Ishmael also has a share in Abraham’s covenant; see, for example, Naumann 2000: 79–85; Brett 2000: 72–73; de Pury 2000: 170–74; Schmid 2009: 74–82. This assumption is especially based on three observations. First, according to 17:20 God promises Ishmael fruitfulness and multiplication so that Ishmael gets a promise that has been given to Abraham within the foregoing covenant scene in 17:2, 6. Second, according to 17:7–8 God establishes the covenant with Abraham and his descendants to whom also Ishmael belongs. Third, according to 17:23–27 Ishmael is circumcised and thus gets the sign of the covenant. However, as shown before, the promise of fruitfulness and multiplication in Gen 17:2, 6 is just applied to Abraham, not to the further generations, and it must be understood as a mere renewal of the creation promise given to all humankind in Gen 1:28; 9:1, 7. The promise given to Ishmael in 17:20 can thus not be taken as an argument that Ishmael gets a share in Abraham’s covenant. That according to 17:7–8 God establishes his covenant with Abraham and his descendants does not necessarily mean that this covenant is handed down to every descendant; it can also mean that the covenant is handed down through one particular line of his descendants. Finally, as shown before, the law of circumcision in 17:9–14 as well as the short notice that Abraham, Ishmael, and the slaves of the house are circumcised in 17:23–27 are the product of a later reworking of the chapter. On this redactional level, but only on this redactional level, Ishmael gets a share in the covenant. However, he gets this share not because of his being a son of Abraham but because of his circumcision. Because of the redactional reworking of Genesis 17, Ishmael is now presented as a kind of exemplary alien who is integrated into God’s people from outside. For a more detailed discussion of the law of circumcision, see Wöhrle 2011b: 78–81. 16.  For the delimitation and the literary assignment of Gen 25:12–17, 18a to the Priestly stratum, see Wöhrle 2012: 68.

30

Jakob Wöhrle

of Isaac and his descendants to live in this land and retreated to their own land. 17 There, in their own land, the promise given to Ishmael in 17:20 came true. 18 There, Ishmael indeed was fruitful and multiplied; there, he begot 12 princes and became a nation. The Priestly version of Abraham’s covenant thus defines the relationship between the ancestors and their relatives in a differentiated way. It marks a limit between the ancestors and their relatives in the possession of the land. It states that only the ancestors, but not their relatives, have a right to the land. But it also states that the relatives, if they accept the ancestors’ exclusive right to the land and dwell in their own territories, are also under the beneficence of Abraham’s God, who guarantees their existence and their prosperity.

Abraham’s Covenant in the Jacob Story The subsequent Priestly passages of Genesis refer to Abraham’s covenant quite rarely. Remarkable is, however, the following promise in Gen 28:4, which Isaac gives to his son Jacob: May he (El Shaddai) give you the blessing of Abraham (‫)ברכת אברהם‬, to you and your descendants with you, that you may possess the land of your strangeness, which God has given to Abraham.

The blessing of Abraham (‫ )ברכת אברהם‬mentioned in Gen 28:4 refers to nothing other than the covenant between God and Abraham as it is documented in Genesis 17. Interestingly enough, Gen 28:4 mentions as content of this covenant solely the assignment of the land. This corroborates the aforementioned consideration that the promise of the land is the central aspect of Abraham’s covenant. 19 17.  Regarding Gen 25:18a, most commentators restrict their explanation to discussing the geographical position of the place names mentioned in this verse; see, for example, Westermann 1981: 488; Speiser 1982: 188; Sarna 1989: 176; and Seebass 1999: 264. With this they overlook that the geographical data given in Gen 25:18a pursue a very concrete intention in that they document that Ishmael has left the land and now restricts himself to his own territories. 18.  Jacob (1934: 538) and Sarna (1989: 176) have already surmised that Gen 25:12–18 shows that the promise given to Ishmael in 17:20 has been fulfilled. 19.  Notably, in the preceding verse, Gen 28:3, Isaac says to Jacob that El Shaddai shall make him fruitful and multiply him (‫פרה‬, ‫)רבה‬. But different from the land promise in 28:4, the promise of fruitfulness and multiplication in 28:3 is not referred to as God’s covenant with Abraham. This clearly shows that the promise of fruitfulness and multiplication should not be seen as part of the generation-spanning covenant with Abraham. According to Gen 28:3–4, the central content of Abraham’s covenant is rather the assignment of the land (contra Westermann 1981: 546; Blum 1984: 263–64;

Abraham amidst the Nations

31

In Gen 28:4, this promise of the land is now given to Jacob. According to the Priestly passages, God’s covenant with Abraham is thus handed down on a genealogical line running through Isaac and then through Jacob. In light of Gen 28:4, the following Priestly text, Gen 36:6–8, describing the behavior of Jacob’s brother Esau is noteworthy: Esau took his wives, his sons, his daughters and all the members of his household, his cattle, his livestock, and all the property he had acquired in the land of Canaan, and he moved to a land, away from his brother Jacob. For their possessions were too great for them to dwell together; the land of their strangeness could not bear them because of their livestock. So Esau dwelt in mount Seir; Esau is Edom.

Gen 36:6–8 states that Esau leaves the land on his own initiative. Esau thus accepts Jacob’s exclusive right to the land and retreats into separate territories. 20 But even more: Gen 36:7 mentions as reason for Esau’s separation that the possessions of Jacob and Esau were too great to dwell in the same land. The separation of Esau thus results from objective necessities. 21 Additionally, the final notice of Gen 36:8, “Esau is Edom,” is remarkable. This short notice says that Esau, after his separation from Jacob, in his own territory, became a nation. There, the Edomites emerged. Like Genesis 17, the Priestly passages of the Jacob story illustrate that only the ancestors, but not their relatives have a share in the covenant and thus a right to the land. However, the Priestly passages of the Jacob story explicitly state that the relatives accept the ancestors’ exclusive right to the land and even the objective necessity of separate territories, and thus retreat to their own land. And again, the Priestly passages of the Jacob story indicate that there, in their own land, the relatives develop and become a nation. Thus, within the Priestly work the Abrahamic covenant specifies the promise of the Noahic covenant according to which the earth will be and remain an inhabitable place for all humanity. The Abrahamic covenant Sarna 1989: 196; Carr 1996: 80; and others, who refer both the promise of fruitfulness and multiplication in 28:3 and the land promise in 28:4 to Abraham’s covenant in Genesis 17). 20. Thus already Westermann (1981: 685), who says in regard to Gen 36:6–8: “Esau überläßt seinem Bruder das verheißene Land.” The underlying text does not support the idea that Esau cedes the land to Jacob just accidentally, as Seebass (1999: 465) supposes. 21.  Gunkel 1910: 391; and Westermann 1981: 685 have already pointed out that, according to the Priestly verses Gen 36:6–8, Jacob and Esau separate from each other consensually.

32

Jakob Wöhrle

points out that, within the earth (as such an inhabitable place for all humanity), the land of Canaan is only entitled to the ancestors and their descendants. The neighboring nations shall retreat and restrict themselves to their own territories. But there, in their own territories, they are also under the promise that the God of Abraham preserves and multiplies them.

The Priestly Covenant and the Persian Imperial Ideology The Achaememid rulers developed a rather specific form of imperial ideology, which differed from the ideology of the foregoing Babylonian or Assyrian kings. 22 One important element of the Persian imperial ideology was that the Persians saw their empire as an entity structured in individual nations with their respective countries. This view is already visible in the self-introductions of the Persian kings. While the Assyrian and Babylonian Rulers depicted themselves as “king of the world” and “king of the four quarters,” the Persian kings described themselves as “king of countries” (DB 1.2; DNa 10; DSe 9; XPa 7–8, etc.; see Ahn 1992: 258–71; Koch 1996: 146–49). Thus, they saw themselves as rulers of an empire divided into different countries. 23 Accordingly, several inscriptions state that the Persian kings restored the order of the world as an entity structured in different nations and countries. Already, the Cyrus Cylinder says that Cyrus brought back certain people into their respective countries (l.32). 24 Comparable statements are documented in the inscriptions of Darius and the subsequent kings (DB 1.66–68; DSe 30–37; XPh 28–35). It is possible to describe the Persian idea of an empire structured in individual nations with their respective countries even in more detail. Remarkable is that several inscriptions document a foundation of creation theology for the Persian imperial ideology (Koch 1996: 143–44; Rose 2011: 37–39). For example, the Naqsh-i Rustam inscription of Darius I begins as follows (DNa 1–4): 25 22.  For the following considerations see, for example, Ahn 1992: 255–77; Koch 1996: 133–205; Briant 2002: 172–83; and Kuhrt 2007: 469–76. 23.  This self-concept of the Persian rulers can also be seen on the Persian reliefs depicting the empire as a corpus built out of members of different nations; see, for example, Ahn 1992: 272–77; Koch 1996: 159–84; Briant 2002: 173–78. 24.  See the translations of the Cyrus cylinder in ANET 315–36; TUAT 1:407–10. 25.  The following translation of the Naqsh-i Rustam inscription is taken from Kent 1953: 138; further editions of the Persian inscriptions can be found at Kuhrt 2007; Schmitt 2009.

Abraham amidst the Nations

33

A great god is Ahuramazda, who created this earth, who created yonder sky, who created man, who created happiness (šiyāti-) for man.

According to the Naqsh-i Rustam inscription Ahuramazda at first created heaven and earth and then he created humanity and happiness. The Persian term šiyāti-, which is often translated as “happiness,” designates the well-being of humanity, but it also includes the aspects of peace and welfare (Kent 1953: 210; Rose 2011: 37). Ahuramazda thus created the world as a place in which humanity can blossom and develop. The next parts of the inscription mention the appointment of Darius as “king of countries” and list the individual countries in the Persian Empire. Subsequent to this list, the Naqsh-i Rustam inscription gives the following remark (DNa 31–38): Ahuramazda, when he saw this earth in commotion, thereafter bestowed it upon me, made me king; I am king. By the favor of Ahuramazda I put it down in its place; what I said to them, that they did, as was my desire.

According to this passage, Ahuramazda commissioned the Persian king to eliminate turmoil on the earth. The Persian king does this by restoring order on the earth. He puts the nations in their respective place on the earth, that is, in their own countries. 26 The Naqsh-i Rustam inscription thus shows that the Persian imperial ideology is determined by a sort of cosmic order. On the earth, created as a place of well-being for all humanity, the individual nations have their respective places in their own territories. This order guarantees peaceful coexistence of the nations on the earth. The Priestly passages of the Pentateuch, written in early Persian times, exhibit considerable congruities to the Persian imperial ideology. 27 As 26.  Koch 1996: 150: “Danach gibt es einen durch die Schöpfung vorherbestimm­ ten Platz, d.h. eine dem Volkscharakter entsprechende Heimat. . . . Solche gottgesetzte internationale Ordnung hat der Großkönig durch seine militärischen Aktionen wieder hergestellt.” 27.  For a detailed explanation of the Priestly passages’ dating in early Persian times, see Wöhrle 2012: 160–63. Congruities between the Priestly passages of the Pentateuch and the Persian imperial ideology have sometimes been recognized regarding the Priestly portions of the “table of nations” in Genesis 10 with its recurring phrase “these are the sons of PN, in their respective countries, with their own language, by their families and nations” (Gen 10:5, 20, 31); see Köckert 1995: 150 n. 16; Schmid 2001: 123; Knauf 2003: 224; Nihan 2007: 383; and others. Further considerations

34

Jakob Wöhrle

shown before, the Priestly concept of covenant is based on the idea that the earth is an inhabitable place where all humanity can blossom and develop; and within this inhabitable place the people descended from Abraham and the neighboring nations divide and restrict themselves to their own territories. This political idea behind the Priestly concept of covenant seems to be influenced by the Persian imperial ideology according to which the world is a place of well-being for all humanity structured in individual nations with their own countries. However, due to the fact that the Priestly passages lay the central focus on Abraham’s descendants, the Priestly concept can be understood as an Israel-oriented adaptation of the Persian imperial ideology.

Conclusion The significance of the Priestly concept of covenant does not only lie in the fact that the twofold covenant with Noah and Abraham is described as a unilaterally established, inviolable covenant of grace. The significance of the Priestly concept of covenant also lies in the fact that it presents a political idea about the coexistence of different nations. The covenant with Noah gives the promise that the earth is and remains an inhabitable place for all humanity where they can be fruitful and multiply. The covenant with Abraham specifies this promise. It states that within this inhabitable place the land of Canaan is only directed to Abraham and his descendants. The ancestors’ relatives shall retreat and restrict themselves to their own territories. But there, in their own territories, they are also under the promise that the God of Abraham preserves and multiplies them. With this concept, the circles behind the Priestly passages of the Pentateuch show how the people of God and the members of foreign nations can and should live together under the new circumstances in the multiethnic empire of Persia. Influenced by the Persian imperial ideology, they present the world as a place in which all humanity can blossom and develop, while still divided into different nations with their respective countries. In this sort of world, they claim for themselves the exclusive right to have been put forward by Mark Brett (2013: 383–92). According to Brett, it is at least reasonable to suppose that the Priestly promise in Gen 28:3; 35:11; 48:4, according to which the ancestors shall become a “company of nations” (‫עמים‬/‫)קהל גוים‬, implicating an autonomous, nonhierarchical coexistence of the nations, is influenced by the Persian imperial ideology. However, up to now, it has not been recognized that the Persian imperial ideology has influenced not only these individual elements of the Priestly work but the political concept of this work as a whole.

Abraham amidst the Nations

35

the land of Canaan. They expect the neighboring nations to accept their right to the land and to retreat to own territories. But if the neighboring nations retreat and restrict themselves to their own territories, the Priestly authors see their existence, their political integrity and even their growth as legitimized by God.

Bibliography Ahn, G. 1992 Religiöse Herrscherlegitimation im achämenidischen Iran: Die Voraussetzungen und die Struktur ihrer Argumentation. Acta Iranica 31. Leiden: Brill / Leuven: Peeters. Bauks, M. 1997 Die Welt am Anfang: Zum Verhältnis von Vorwelt und Weltentstehung in Gen 1 und in der altorientalischen Literatur. Wissenschaftliche Mono­ graphien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 74. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Baumgart, N. C. 1999 Die Umkehr des Schöpfergottes: Zu Komposition und religionsgeschichtlichem Hintergrund von Gen 5–9. Herders biblische Studien 22. Freiburg: Herder. Blum, E. 1984 Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 57. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Börner-Klein, D. 1993 Tohu und Bohu. Zur Auslegungsgeschichte von Gen 1,2a. Henoch 15: 3–41. Brett, M. G. 2000 Reading the Bible in the Context of Methodological Pluralism: The Undermining of Ethnic Exclusivism in Genesis. Pp. 48–74 in Rethinking Contexts, Rereading Texts: Contributions from the Social Sciences to Biblical Interpretation, ed. M. D. Carroll R. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 299. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. 2013 Permutations of Sovereignty in the Priestly Tradition. Vetus Testamentum 63: 383–92. Briant, P. 2002 From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire, trans. P. T. Daniels; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Carr, D. 1996 Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary Approaches. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. Dequeker, L. 1974 Noah and Israel: The Everlasting Divine Covenant with Mankind. Pp. 115–29 in Questions disputées d’Ancien Testament: Méthode et Théologie, ed. C. Brekelmans. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 33. Leuven: Leuven University Press.

36

Jakob Wöhrle

Görg, M. 1995 ‫תהו‬. Pp. 555–63 in vol. 8 of ThWAT. Groß, W. 1978 Bundeszeichen und Bundesschluß in der Priesterschrift. Trierer theologische Zeitschrift 87: 98–115. Grünwaldt, K. 1992 Exil und Identität: Beschneidung, Passa und Sabbat in der Priesterschrift. Bonner biblische Beiträge 85. Frankfurt am Main: Hain. Gunkel, H. 1910 Genesis. Handkommentar zum Alten Testament 1,1. 3rd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Jacob, B. 1934 Das Buch Genesis. Berlin: Schocken. Repr., Stuttgart: Calwer, 2000. Kent, R. G. 1953 Old Persian: Grammar Texts Lexicon. American Oriental Series 33. 2nd ed. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society. Klein, R. W. 1981 The Message of P. Pp. 57–66 in Die Botschaft und die Boten: Festschrift für Hans Walter Wolff zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. J. Jeremias and L. Perlitt. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Knauf, E. A. 2003 Grenzen der Toleranz in der Priesterschrift. Bibel und Kirche 58: 224–27. Koch, K. 1996 Weltordnung und Reichsidee im alten Iran und ihre Auswirkungen auf die Provinz Jehud. Pp. 133–205 in Reichsidee und Reichsorganisation im Perserreich, ed. P. Frei and K. Koch. Orbis biblicus et orientalis 55. 2nd ed. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Köckert, M. 1995 Das Land in der priesterlichen Komposition des Pentateuch. Pp. 147–62 in Von Gott reden: Beiträge zur Theologie und Exegese des Alten Testaments, ed. D. Vieweger and E.-J. Waschke. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Kuhrt, A. 2007 The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period. 2 vols. London: Routledge. Levin, C. 1993 Der Jahwist. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 157. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Lohfink, N. 1978 Die Priesterschrift und die Geschichte. Pp. 189–225 in Congress Volume: Göttingen 1977. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 29. Leiden: Brill. Löhr, M. 1924 Untersuchungen zum Hexateuchproblem, vol. 1: Der Priesterkodex in der Genesis. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 38. Gießen: Alfred Töpelmann.

Abraham amidst the Nations

37

Naumann, T. 2000 Ismael: Abrahams verlorener Sohn. Pp. 70–89 in Bekenntnis zu dem einen Gott? Christen und Muslime zwischen Mission und Dialog, ed. R. Weth. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Nihan, C. 2007 From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch: A Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2/25. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 2009 The Priestly Covenant, Its Reinterpretations, and the Composition of “P”. Pp. 87–134 in The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions, ed. S. Shectman and J. S. Baden. Abhand­ lungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 95. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag. Pury, A. de 2000 Abraham: The Priestly Writer’s “Ecumenical” Ancestor. Pp. 163–81 in Rethinking the Foundations: Historiography in the Ancient World and in the Bible, ed. S. L. McKenzie and T. Römer. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 294. Berlin: de Gruyter. Rad, G. von 1934 Die Priesterschrift im Hexateuch: Literarisch untersucht und theologisch gewertet. Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament 65. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. 1972 Das erste Buch Mose: Genesis. Das Alte Testament Deutsch 2–4. 9th ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Rose, J. 2011 Zoroastrianism: An Introduction. London: Tauris. Ruppert, L. 2002 Genesis: Ein kritischer und theologischer Kommentar, vol. 2: Gen 11,27– 25,18. Forschung zur Bibel 98. Würzburg: Echter. Sarna, N. M. 1989 Genesis. Jewish Publication Society Torah Commentary. Jerusalem: Jewish Publication Society. Schmid, K. 2001 Der Gott der Väter und der Gott des Exodus: Inklusive und partikulare Theologie am Beginn des Alten Testaments. Glaube und Lernen 16: 116–25. 2009 Gibt es eine “abrahamitische Ökumene” im Alten Testament? Überlegungen zur religionspolitischen Theologie der Priesterschrift in Genesis 17. Pp. 67–92 in Die Erzväter in der biblischen Tradition: Festschrift für Matthias Köckert, ed. A. C. Hagedorn and H. Pfeiffer. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 400. Berlin: de Gruyter. Schmidt, W. H. 1973 Die Schöpfungsgeschichte der Priesterschrift: Zur Überlieferungsgeschichte von Genesis 1,1–2,4a und 2,4b–3,24. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 17. 3rd ed. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.

38

Jakob Wöhrle

Schmitt, R. 2009 Die altpersischen Inschriften der Achaimeniden: Editio minor mit deutscher Übersetzung. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Schüle, A. 2006 Der Prolog der hebräischen Bibel: Der literar- und theologiegeschichtliche Diskurs der Urgeschichte (Gen 1–11). Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 86. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag. 2009 Die Urgeschichte (Genesis 1–11). Zürcher Bibelkommentare 1,1. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag. Seebass, H. 1997 Genesis, vol. 2,1: Vätergeschichte I (11,27–22,24). Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. 1999 Genesis, vol. 2,2: Vätergeschichte II (23,1–36,43). Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. 2009 Genesis, vol. 1: Urgeschichte (1,1–11,26). 3rd ed. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Ska, J.-L. 2006 Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Specht, H. 1987 Von Gott enttäuscht: Die priesterschriftliche Abrahamgeschichte. Evangelische Theologie 47: 395–411. Speiser, E. A. 1982 Genesis: Introduction, Translation, and Notes. Anchor Bible 1. New York: Doubleday. Steck, O. H. 1981 Der Schöpfungsbericht der Priesterschrift. Studien zur literarkritischen und überlieferungsgeschichtlichen Problematik von Genesis 1,1–2,4a. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 115. 2nd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Tsumura, D. T. 1994 The Earth in Genesis 1. Pp. 310–28 in I Studied Inscriptions from before the Flood: Ancient Near Eastern, Literary, and Linguistic Approaches to Genesis 1–11, ed. R. S. Hess and D. T. Tsumara. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Weimar, P. 2007 Zwischen Verheißung und Verpflichtung: Der Abrahambund im Rahmen des priesterschriftlichen Werkes. Pp. 261–69 in Für immer verbündet: Studien zur Bundestheologie der Bibel, ed. C. Dohmen and C. Frevel. Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 211. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. Wenham, G. J. 1987 Genesis 1–15. Word Biblical Commentary 1. Waco, TX: Word. Westermann, C. 1974 Genesis, vol. 1/1: Genesis 1–11. Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament 1/1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. 1981 Genesis, vol. 2: Genesis 12–36. Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament 1/2. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.

Abraham amidst the Nations

39

Wöhrle, J. 2009 Dominium terrae: Exegetische und religionsgeschichtliche Überlegungen zum Herrschaftsauftrag in Gen 1,26–28. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 121: 171–88. 2010 The Un-Empty Land: The Concept of Exile and Land in P. Pp. 189–206 in The Concept of Exile in Ancient Israel and Its Historical Contexts, ed. E. Ben Zvi and C. Levin. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 404. Berlin: de Gruyter. 2011a Isaak und Ismael: Zum Verhältnis der beiden Abrahamsöhne nach Genesis 17 und Galater 4,21–31. Evangelische Theologie 71: 115–32. 2011b The Integrative Function of the Law of Circumcision. Pp. 71–87 in The Foreigner and the Law: Perspectives from the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East, ed. R. Albertz et al. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 16. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 2012 Fremdlinge im eigenen Land: Zur Entstehung und Intention der priesterlichen Passagen der Vätergeschichte. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 246. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Wyatt, N. 1993 The Darkness of Genesis 1:2. Vetus Testamentum 43: 543–54. Zenger, E. 1983 Gottes Bogen in den Wolken: Untersuchungen zu Komposition und Theologie der priesterschriftlichen Urgeschichte. Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 112. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. Zimmerli, W. 1960 Sinaibund und Abrahambund: Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der Priesterschrift. Theologische Zeitschrift 16: 268–80. 1976 1. Mose 12–25: Abraham. Zürcher Bibelkommentare 1,2. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag.

The “Eternal Covenant” in the Priestly Pentateuch and the Major Prophets Andreas Schüle Universität Leipzig and University of Stellenbosch

Covenant in the Priestly Code In his seminal essay “Abrahamsbund und Zionsbund: Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der Priesterschrift,” 1 Walter Zimmerli argues that the Priestly transmission in the Pentateuch intentionally disconnects the Sinai events and the Sinai legislation from the notion of covenant. There are a number of observations that Zimmerli offers (in this particular essay and elsewhere) to support his argument. While there are covenants associated with Noah and Abraham, there is no such covenant with Moses as the hero of the Exodus stories (1963: 205). This is particularly striking because the nonpriestly text of the second Sinai pericope does in fact mention a covenant with Moses as a mediating figure (Exod 34:10–27). Even more significant in Zimmerli’s view is that the book of Exodus ends with the image of the glory of God coming down on and settling in the tabernacle (Exod 40:34–38). This final self-revelation of God’s glory among Israel leaves the somewhat static concept of covenant behind. At Sinai, Israel becomes God’s people not because of any kind of legal arrangement but simply because Israel is drawn into the divine sphere, whether they particularly desire it or not. Precisely because other literary traditions such as Deuteronomy (Deut 5:2; 28:69) and the Holiness Code (Lev 24:8; 26:9, 15, 25, 42–45) did in fact couch the Sinai events in covenantal language, Zimmerli concludes that P consciously and deliberately departed from a long-standing tradition, 2 according to which the revelation of God’s torah on Mount 1.  Originally published in Theologische Zeitschrift 16: 268–80; reprinted in Zimmerli, Gottes Offenbarung: Gesammelte Aufsätze (Theologische Bücherei 19; Munich: Kaiser, 1963) 205–16. 2.  Zimmerli (1963: 206) agrees with S. Mowinckel and G. von Rad that the celebration of the covenant must have been embedded in Israel’s liturgical calendar, as evidenced in Psalms 50 and 81.

41

42

Andreas Schüle

Sinai established a binding legal agreement or, as Josephus would later call it, a politeia 3 that tied the existence and the perseverance of Israel to its covenantal loyalty. As others before and after him, Zimmerli viewed the downfall of the monarchy in Israel and Judah, the Babylonian exile, and its end as historical experiences that rendered any confidence in Israel’s ability to live up to its covenantal commitments obsolete. 4 For this reason, P interprets Sinai as the fulfillment of the covenant 5 with Abraham (Genesis 17) and so anchors Sinai in the blessings and the promises to the patriarchs, promises that did not stipulate any conditions (with the exception of circumcision) that Israel had to meet in order to remain in the covenant. 6 This renaissance or, perhaps more adequately, the discovery of the ancestral traditions surfaces in some of the exilic and postexilic traditions, apart from P especially in Second Isaiah. However, Second Isaiah does not seem to know anything about a covenant with Abraham. Rather, it is the remembrance of Abraham (Isa 41:8; 51:2) that assures Israel of Yhwh’s trustworthiness, which becomes the blueprint of Isaiah’s announcement of a covenant that God establishes with Israel now that their time of exile and punishment had finally come to a close. P, on the other hand, pushes the covenant back into Israel’s early history and views the present as a time of fulfillment in which this old covenant would finally come to fruition. This is P’s way of saying that the foundations of Israel’s relationship with Yhwh had been laid long ago and that it was time to reconnect with this heritage after the dire experience of a failed monarchy and foreign rulership. Zimmerli’s position is intriguing because it offers a genuinely theological interpretation alongside the literary analysis of covenantal traditions in 3.  Josephus, Ant. 4.184, 193, 198, 302, 310, 312. See S. Dean McBride Jr. 1987: 229–44. 4.  Zimmerli 1963: 215. 5.  The question where P ends has been a matter of much discussion. Obviously, this question presupposes that, at some point, P was an independent document with a defined beginning and end. Since this is not exactly clear either, a better way of phrasing the question might be, where does one find corresponding elements within the material that is typically assigned to P? While some commentators argue that Genesis 1 and Exodus 40 form an inclusion (the completion of creation and the completion of the tabernacle), others hold that the building and furnishing of the tabernacle alone might not be enough but require that the sacrificial cult be implemented, which would push the boundaries of P to Lev 9:22–24 or even Lev 16:34. Since there is no way to decide this question with sufficient certainty, this essay suggests a different approach: rather than focus on the beginning and end, one can try to reconstruct the inner-architecture of P, and the notion of covenant might prove to be of prime significance in this regard. 6.  Zimmerli 1963: 215–16.

The “Eternal Covenant”

43

the Postexilic Period. Zimmerli is quite aware that whatever decision one makes about a particular detail has to fit into the bigger picture, in this case the theological agenda of the Priestly Code. However, one of the details that Zimmerli has to downplay in order for his interpretation of covenant in P to work is the mention of a covenant in Exod 31:16. Here, one finds both the term ‫( ברית עולם‬eternal covenant) and the notion of a sign of the covenant, which are characteristic of Genesis 9 and 17 as the two signature texts of P’s covenantal theology. However, the eternal covenant of Exodus 31 differs from Genesis 9 and 17 in one particular detail, namely, that Sabbath observance imposes a stronger covenantal requirement on Israel, which means that the covenant, in spite of its eternal nature, could be broken. This “eternal covenant” imposes a condition on Israel, which seems to contradict P’s alleged understanding of covenant as a unilateral divine promise. Thus, Zimmerli concludes that Exod 31:16 should be seen as a remnant of an older, perhaps deuteronomic, version of the Sinai pericope that P apparently had failed to strip of its contractual eggshells. 7 It may be safe to say that Zimmerli’s exclusion of Exod 31:12–17 from P still represents the majority position of the scholarly guild. However, the reasons for this assumption have changed dramatically. While, for example, Israel Knohl and Christophe Nihan agree that Exod 31:12–17 should be considered non-P, they assign this passage to the Holiness School, which in their respective views did not precede but postdated P. 8 This would explain why there are ideas such as the eternal covenant and the sign of the covenant combined with concepts and language reminiscent of the Holiness Code (Leviticus 17–26). However, even this interpretation does not really challenge the traditional assumption that P did not have and could not have any version of a Sinai covenant. Obviously, it is quite conceivable 7.  Zimmerli 1963: 217. Following Zimmerli, E. Blum (1990: 294) argues that what he considers to be pre-Priestly mentions of the covenant were eventually employed by the Priestly school as instantiations of the already existing covenant with Abraham. In a similar vein, W. Groß (1998: 57) reconstructs the reception of the Sinai covenant in the Priestly school. In Groß’s interpretation, the Priestly author, although somewhat reluctantly, integrated the Sinai covenant with the Sabbath as the second, eternal sign into his overall scheme: “Der priesterliche Autor von Ex 31,12–17 hat den Sinaibund nicht nur, ihn verändernd, rezipiert; er hat ihn zugleich so unsichtbar wie möglich gemacht.” 8. While Knohl (1995: 14–17, 105) and Nihan (2007: 567–68) agree with respect to relative chronology—with the Holiness School being later than the Priestly Torah—they differ considerably with regard to absolute chronology. For Knohl, P and H belong to the Monarchic Period and were completed no later than the 8th century b.c.e., whereas for Nihan the work of P and H falls into the Exilic and Postexilic Periods.

44

Andreas Schüle

that the concept of covenant shows the same developmental trajectory from universal to specific that is characteristic of P’s theology in general. Initially, there is a covenant with all of creation that only requires that creatures are fruitful and procreate, something that they would have done by their very nature anyway. Next is the covenant with the descendants of Abraham with the requirement of circumcision, which is characteristic of but not limited to “Israel.” Finally, there is a covenant specifically and, apparently, exclusively with those who witness Yhwh’s self-revelation at Mount Sinai. This is where the meaning of the mysterious seventh day is finally revealed and where Sabbath and Sabbath observance become the core of Israel’s abiding relationship with Yhwh. Thus, it comes as no surprise that, in contrast to the assumption that all of Exod 31:12–17 is a later addition to the P Grundschrift, scholars have also entertained the idea that at least parts of this passage should be assigned to P (or P s) and thus be considered as an integral part of its covenantal theology.  9 Saul Olyan (2005: 202) has suggested that 31:16–17 belongs to P and was later augmented by the Holiness School that added vv. 12–15. 10 He further observers that 31:16–17, Exod 20:11, and Gen 2:2–3 form P’s theological matrix about the Sabbath: “Exodus 31:17; 20:11; and Gen 2:2–3 share a number of important characteristics. All three associate the Sabbath with creation, and 31:17 and 20:11 justify Israelite Sabbath observance by citing Yhwh’s rest on the seventh day as a model for human rest. They also formulate their justifications using a very similar style, which raises the possibility of intended allusion from one text to the other and even borrowing (2005: 208–9).” In a similar vein, Jeffrey Stackert (2011) attributes even more text to P. He finds the voice of P also in 31,12aα and in v. 15, minus the words completely, holy, and surely. Leaving aside the question whether v. 15 should be attributed to H or, at least in parts, to P, both Olyan and Stackert take seriously that 31:12–17[18] may well be a composite text with both Priestly and non-Priestly passages. 11 Olyan also points out that it is a matter of exegetical honesty to admit that there cannot be any final certainty about whether vv. 15–17 are a part of 9. Ps (superscript s stands for German Sondergut) has been used to label later additions to the original Priestly Code. 10.  Olyan (2005: 201–2) also offers an instructive summary of the conversation between Knohl and Milgrom. For a comprehensive overview of previous scholarship see A. Ruwe 1999: 5–35. 11. However, as S. van den Eynde (1996: 501–11) has rightly observed, Exod 31:12–17 seems to be well composed and does not show any obvious signs of literary growth.

The “Eternal Covenant”

45

the P Grundschrift, or whether these verses only sound like P but represent the theology of the Holiness School or of some otherwise unknown redactor of the Sinai pericope. Despite this uncertainty, I would follow Olyan’s and Stackert’s proposal that the Sabbath as a sign of the eternal covenant and the requirement of Sabbath observance for Israel fit well into the covenantal theology of P. 12 It is certainly reasonable to assume that the notion of covenant is anchored in all three parts of P’s pentateuchal narrative: the primeval period (Genesis 9), the ancestral period (Genesis 17), and the Sinai events (Exodus 31). On the other hand, there is no real reason to assume that P’s concept of covenant is strictly unconditional, which may have been the main reason, especially for Protestant exegetes, to assign Exod 31:12–17 either to a pre-Priestly source or to a post-Priestly redactor. Obviously, this condition is already mentioned in Genesis 17 with the required circumcision of newborn males, which is supposed to separate the descendants of Abraham from other ethnicities. As biblical and archeological evidence suggest, circumcision was not a proprium of Israelite culture, but it was not a common practice either (discussed below), so one does get the impression that there is an intended development from the Noahic covenant with the rainbow as a natural phenomenon to the Abrahamic covenant that implements a specific cultural practice as a covenantal sign. It is certainly conceivable that, with the Sabbath, the Priestly tradition takes the notion of covenant to yet another level where its purpose is to define the particular relationship between Yhwh and his chosen people and, correspondingly, where it requires a particular religious practice that distinguishes Israel from other nations. One might even consider that the Priestly concept of covenant remains strangely incomplete until and unless it also includes the “making” of Israel as God’s people at Sinai. As a result, one has to challenge the notion that in P or, put more cautiously, in the Priestly line of tradition, the making of covenants is limited to Israel’s ancestral history but does not also extend into the Sinai events. 13 12. As Ruwe (1999: 132–33) has aptly demonstrated, the two mentions of the Sabbath in Exod 31:12–17 and 35:1–3 match the Priestly scheme of announcement and fulfillment that one finds in Exod 25:1–31:11 and 35:4–39:43. This observation has been particularly helpful, because it draws attention to the fact that the Sabbath passages in Exodus 31 and 35 either form an original transition in the Priestly text or represent a secondary frame around the second (non-Priestly) Sinai pericope (Exodus 32–34). For a mostly synchronic approach to the significance of the Sabbath frame, see Timmer 2009. 13.  It may be worth mentioning that labels such as P, H, or D, as well as various subcategories thereof, are hardly more than rough categories that capture only certain

46

Andreas Schüle

Zimmerli, like many scholars before and after him, sees the inclusio between creation and Sinai (or cosmology and cult) as a characteristic that P shares with Ancient Near Eastern mythology. In this perspective, covenant only belongs to that portion of the history of Israel that is sandwiched between creation on the one hand and the implementation of the cult on Mount Sinai on the other. This perception changes, however, if one takes Exod 31:16–17 to be an integral part of the Priestly text. In this case, the concept of covenant is one that develops and unfolds as the narrative moves from the great flood to God’s self-revelation at Mount Sinai. 14 Initially, this is a covenant without any participation of created beings and, correspondingly, without any expectations for humans or any other living beings (Gen 6:18; 9:9–17). All that they are supposed to do is procreate and fill the earth—something that they would have done anyway. The next step is the covenant with Abraham, which, like the covenant with Noah, includes a particular sign. In this case, however, this sign needs human action. All firstborn males are supposed to be circumcised. 15 As Saul Olyan (2011) has aptly demonstrated, it remains uncertain if and to what extant this sign distinguished the Israelites from their environment. Circumcision would have been somewhat distinctive in Babylon and, therefore, could point to exilic origins. However, perhaps the more likely scenario is that the sign of the Abrahamic covenant was not even meant to be particularly distinctive in an environment where many of Israel’s neighbors, including the Egyptians, practiced circumcision.  16 However, as we arrive at Sinai, aspects of the transmission history of complex texts such as Exodus 20–40. In the case of Exod 31:12–17, a particularly intriguing detail is the interpretation of what distinguishes the seventh day of creation from the other six. Interestingly, while this passage determines that the Sabbath is a holy day (v. 14), it does not mention that God sanctified the Sabbath as one might expect, if the authors (P or H) knew Gen 2:1–3. On the other hand, this knowledge is certainly presupposed in v. 17, where the divine rest of Gen 2:3 is repeated but augmented by what one might call a mini midrash, giving us the additional detail that God “caught his breath” (‫)וינפש‬. In other words, as one focuses on smaller textual units, the rules that work in the big picture become fuzzy. Thus, it would seem accurate to state that Exod 31:12–17 stands somewhere between P and H. 14. See Dillman 1897: 334. 15. It remains open, however, when the circumcision of newborn males on the eighth day (Gen 17:9–1; Lev 12:3) became a religious norm. While this regulation is firmly anchored in the Priestly ancestral narratives, it appears only sporadically in the Exodus tradition (Ex 4:24–26; 12:44). As a matter of fact, the narrator in Josh 5:2–7 feels the need to report that all of the Israelite males were circumcised after the wilderness wanderings, because this had not been done before. 16.  As J. F. Quack (2012) has shown for ancient Egypt, it is conceivable that even within one and the same religious context, circumcision was not necessarily a general

The “Eternal Covenant”

47

the covenant does take a very distinctive form with regard to the sign of the covenant and the obligations placed on Israel. As Exod 31:15 explains, violating the Sabbath is a punishable offense because this contradicts the rhythm of the created order. Just as God rested on the seventh day and was refreshed or, perhaps more literally, “caught his breath,” so shall Israel honor the seventh day. It is interesting to note that Sabbath observance, in Exod 31:12–17 and 35:1–3, does not seem to be required of nonIsraelites as is the case in both versions of the Decalogue (Exod 20:8–10; Deut 5:12–15). This is worth noticing because in the case of circumcision, according to Gen 17:12–13, non-Israelite male servants also have to undergo circumcision. If one compares the significance and cultural distinctiveness of circumcision vis-à-vis Sabbath observance, one can conclude that Israel apparently positioned itself in a cultural environment where circumcision was known to be a practice that at least some of Israel’s neighbors used, whereas the Sabbath was a unique feature of emerging Judaism. Looking at how the narrative line of the Priestly account unfolds, the level of distinctiveness increases the closer one gets to Sinai. Along the same line, Sabbath observance seems to have been a far more important requirement than circumcision with regard to the inclusion of foreigners in the temple community. As Isa 56:6–7 states, Sabbath observance could become a vehicle even for foreigners to be included in the community of Israel: “And the foreigners who join themselves to Yhwh to minister to him, to love the name of Yhwh, and to be his servants, all who keep the Sabbath, and do not profane it, and hold fast my covenant, I will bring them to my sacred mount and let them rejoice in my house of prayer.” It seems that this passage from Isaiah picks up where P leaves off, namely, in assuming that Sabbath observance as a general law could become the access point even for those without Israelite/Jewish descent. As we have seen so far, it seems difficult to anchor the Priestly notion of covenant in one particular event or associate it with only one particular stage in the history of Israel in the way Zimmerli suggests. There also seems to be little gain in applying the distinction between conditional and unconditional forms of a covenant to P. 17 While this has been a popular norm but may have applied to particular groups of males (such as priests) only and may have been exercised at different ages. In this perspective, it is not so much circumcision as such that distinguishes Israel from its neighbors but the specific regulation that all males were to be circumcised as newborns. 17.  For an overview especially of the discussion of conditionality and unconditionality with regard to the notion of covenant, see Bautch 2009: 11–15, 26–32.

48

Andreas Schüle

way of distinguishing the allegedly completely unconditional covenant in P from the conditional type in D, this rough typology does not capture, as noted above, the particulars of the covenant with Abraham. 18 Covenant in P is best understood as a dynamic concept with a telos, namely, the Sinai revelation for Israel as God’s chosen people. As Richard Bautch (2009: 15–42) has helpfully demonstrated, the Priestly covenant can be described as the medium through which Israel slowly and gradually becomes a worshiping community. There is a liturgical and cultic layer to this understanding of covenant that takes the entire concept to a different level. The Noahic covenant provides the world with the safety and permanent stability for living beings to emerge; the Abrahamic covenant promises that a random group of people will become a nation on their own land, and the Sinai covenant, finally, defines this nation as a cultic community whose purpose it is to serve the God who created heaven and earth. Scholars have always noted P’s dynamic characterization of God, which moves from vagueness and ambiguity to ever-greater clarity. 19 Initially, there is only the nameless Elohim who creates the world, although it remains entirely open who this God is. It is a God who speaks and acts but who has no place in the created sphere and whose presence in the world remains somewhat mysterious. Initially, this God calls himself El Shaddai (Gen 17:1), then reveals his secret name to Moses (Exod 6:3), and eventually settles down in the tabernacle that the Israelites had built for him (Exod 40:34). It seems that P’s notion of covenant follows the same development of a deepening relationship between Israel and their God, a relationship in which Israel is actively involved by building and furnishing the tabernacle, by implementing the cult and, as the most integral part of this relationship, by honoring and observing the Sabbath.

The “Eternal Covenant” in Exilic/Postexilic Prophecy Assuming that this is an adequate characterization of P’s concept of covenant as it unfolds through the books of Genesis and Exodus, there is still one detail that has received surprisingly little scholarly attention, namely, the fact that this covenant is called ‫ברית עולם‬, “eternal covenant.” In a recent dissertation on this subject, Steven Mason (2008) calls this 18.  For this reason, Groß (1998: 55) combines the distinction between conditional and unconditional with the concept of individualization (Ezekiel 18). This means that in the case of Genesis 317 and Exodus 31, the covenant as such stands firm, even though it implies conditions (circumcision, Sabbath observance) that individuals have to meet in order to remain in the covenant. 19.  Zenger 1987: 167–77; Janowski 1990.

The “Eternal Covenant”

49

‫ ברית עולם‬an “elusive phrase,” and this seems to be a fair representation of how most exegetes approach this issue. The adjective ‫ עולם‬is usually taken as a rhetorical device that gives the notion of covenant a certain solemnity without, however, adding much conceptual value to it. Nonetheless, it is striking that P, more than any other textual tradition in the Old Testament, is very consistent in its choice of words because in all three cases of a covenant in P—with Noah, Abraham, and at Sinai—it is called a ‫ברית עולם‬. Equally consistently, this phrase never appears outside the P and H traditions of the Pentateuch. This is particularly noteworthy with regard to Genesis 15, which includes the other covenant with Abraham (Gen 15:18–21). Most scholars nowadays agree that this might be a later addition that presupposes P but gives the Abrahamic covenant more of a Sinaitic feel (the vision of God coming down in fire and darkness) in order to elevate the promise to Abraham to the same revelatory level as the Sinai events. However, this covenant is not called a ‫ברית עולם‬, although chances are that the authors of Genesis 15 were familiar with this language. One can make a similar observation with regard to the materials that predate P. If the book of the covenant and the core of Deuteronomy are indicative of the use of the term ‫ ברית‬in the Monarchic Period, then there is reason to believe that the phrase ‫ ברית עולם‬did not play a significant role prior to the Exilic and Postexilic Periods. The prophetic traditions lend further credibility to this assumption. It has always been noted that the preexilic prophets do not seem to be particularly familiar with or interested in the idea that Israel’s relationship with their God should be cast in the form of a covenant. 20 This impression changes, however, when one looks at the exilic and postexilic prophets where covenant appears to have become a productive paradigm to conceive of God’s future relationship with Israel. And here, too, one finds that all three major prophets employ the language of a ‫ברית‬ ‫ עולם‬quite deliberately in key passages of their respective theologies. If we stay with these prophetic texts for a moment, it becomes immediately clear that the ‫ ברית עולם‬is something that contrasts with the old covenant—a covenant that ended (and ended unsuccessfully) because of Israel’s unfaithfulness. As a matter of fact, in the major prophets the antonym of the “old” covenant is not so much the “new” covenant (only in Jer 31:31) but the ‫ברית עולם‬, the “eternal” covenant. The key question that all three prophets address is precisely how a covenant that, by its nature, is a fragile 20.  Specifically for the book of Ezekiel, see Jüngling 1993: 113 n. 2. For the Isaianic tradition, see Groß 1993: 149–67.

50

Andreas Schüle

construct that lasts only as long as all the parties involved honor it can be ‫—עולם‬eternal. The prophetic answers to this question offer a variety of solutions that should be summarized here at least briefly. Perhaps the earliest instance of the eternal covenant is found in Ezek 16:60: “Nevertheless, I will remember the covenant I made with you in the days of your youth, and I will establish it with you as an eternal covenant.” This may be the most basic and straightforward account of the need for a covenant that would prevail where the old covenant failed. There is nothing particularly new about this covenant, and there is also nothing new about the fact that this is conditional and, as such, could be broken again. Different, however, is Israel’s approach to it. The expectation appears to be that Israel will finally come to understand how foolish, reckless, and immature they had been in the days of their youth. Israel will be ashamed of its past ways and simply never want to return to its former state of unfaithfulness. One senses a certain level of confidence and hope here that through its experience of deportation and exile Israel has finally left its adolescence phase behind and has become a more mature and reliable partner in the covenant with Yhwh. Something very similar can be said for Ezek 37:21–26. Here, too, one finds the idea that the exile was a cleansing experience, preparing and enabling Israel for a fully restored relationship with Yhwh, which will no longer include worshiping idols and foreign deities. It is particularly significant that Israel will even have a successor to the throne of David again. Thus says the Lord God: Behold, I will take the people of Israel from the nations among which they have gone, and will gather them from all around, and bring them to their own land. And I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel. And one king shall be king over them all, and they shall be no longer two nations, and no longer divided into two kingdoms. They shall not defile themselves anymore with their idols and their detestable things, or with any of their transgressions. But I will save them from all the backslidings in which they have sinned, and will cleanse them; and they shall be my people, and I will be their God. My servant David shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall walk in my rules and be careful to obey my statutes. They shall dwell in the land that I gave to my servant Jacob, where your fathers lived. They and their children and their children’s children shall dwell there forever, and David my servant shall be their prince forever. I will make a covenant of peace with them. It shall be an eternal covenant with them. And I will set them in their land and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in their midst forever­ more. (NRSV)

The “Eternal Covenant”

51

There is a clear political agenda included in this eternal covenant, which Ezekiel also calls a “covenant of peace.” Israel will be a united nation in the midst of all the peoples of the earth. The Davidic king will rule Israel, 21 and at the same time Yhwh himself will dwell among his people. 22 There is a cultic and a monarchic edge to this covenant, which is reminiscent of Haggai and Zechariah and, therefore, could point to similar historical circumstances and a similar expectation for Israel’s future. 23 It is an open question, however, if and to what extent the announcement of an eternal covenant was originally linked to Ezekiel’s preceding prophecies of the “new heart” and the resurrection of the dry bones. The question is simply whether the eternal covenant presupposes that Israel becomes a different people, with a new heart and a new spirit, which will finally enable them to become a faithful covenant people. An alternative view is that the “new heart” and the “eternal covenant” are two different and, to some extent, even opposing concepts—one that emphasizes the need for fundamental change, whereas the other caries a sense of continuity and fulfillment. The latter view receives support from Isa 55:1–5 and 61:8–9 where the eternal covenant emphasizes Israel’s restitution among the nations as a sign of Yhwh’s sovereign, universal rule. Isa 55:1–5 reads: Come, everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; and he who has no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. Why do you spend your money for that which is not bread, and your labor for that which does not satisfy? Listen diligently to me, and eat what is good, and delight yourselves in rich food. 21.  The question remains, however, whether the mention of David suggests more than just the restitution of the monarchy. Greenberg (1997: 760) may be right in suggesting that “The text requires no more than a ‘new David’ who is not the old one resurrected or merely one of David’s line, but something in between: a future king who will be the moral (and physical?) duplicate of the David idealized by late biblical writers.” 22.  The only text outside the prophetic corpus that associated David with an eternal covenant is 2 Sam 23:5. However, given the uncertain date of the “Last Words of David,” it is not clear whether Ezekiel referenced an already exisiting (Deuteronomistic) tradition or if 2 Sam 23:5 includes a retrospective interpretation of the Davidic monarchy. 23.  Kutsko (2000: 141) rightly points to the parallel between the eternal covenant and the eternal sanctuary in Ezek 37:26–28. In perspective, it is interesting that, while the mention of a Davidic king is part of the covenant, it does not itself carry the predicate “eternal.” Kutsko (2000: 147) interprets this as a sign that the monarchy is still an earthly reality, whereas the sanctuary belongs to the divine sphere.

52

Andreas Schüle Incline your ear, and come to me; hear, that your soul may live; and I will make with you an eternal covenant, my steadfast, sure love for David. Behold, I made him a witness to the peoples, a leader and commander for the peoples. Behold, you shall call a nation that you do not know, and a nation that did not know you shall run to you, because of Yhwh your God, and of the Holy One of Israel, for he has glorified you. 24

The parallels between Ezekiel 37 and Isaiah 55 also suggest that the prophetic understanding of the eternal covenant included hope for political autonomy. Isaiah 55 is certainly more discreet in this regard than Ezekiel 37, because it does not directly announce the rise of a Davidic king but only talks about God’s love for David. Still, even in this subdued form the messianic overtone of the eternal covenant is loud and clear. 25 Things seem to become more difficult with regard to Jeremiah’s notion of the ‫( ברית עולם‬Jer 32:39–41). Here, too, the restoration of Israel to their land after a period of foreign rule (Jer 33:25–35) is a dominant theme giving the ‫ ברית עולם‬a teleological point. However, there is no mention of a new king or any other political or religious form of governance. As a matter of fact, both the eternal covenant in 33:40 and the new covenant in 31:31–33 highlight the unmediated relationship between Yhwh and Israel as what is characteristically different between the old and the new/ eternal covenant.  26 Yhwh will inscribe the law on Israel’s heart (31:33) or, in the idiom of 32:40, put the fear of him in Israel’s heart. It is not Israel that has become a new people, nor is the law different from the one that Moses announced on Mount Sinai. New, however, is the coming together of Israel’s heart and Yhwh’s law and the emphasis on the immediate and intimate relationship between God and his people. It cannot be discussed here whether the Jeremiah passage is meant as a synthesis of the new heart and the eternal covenant in Ezekiel or if, 24.  My translation. 25. Contra Blenkinsopp 2002: 370: “This language does not, however, imply a commitment to restoring the Davidic dynasty. What is promised is that the hearers will experience the same kind of God’s faithful love . . . that God performed in former times on behalf of David.” 26.  On the development of Jeremiah’s concept of covenant, which eventually builds up to the notion of a new covenant, see Weippert 1979 in conversation with Stoebe 1964. There seems to be general agreement that the new covenant in Jer 31:31–34 is synonymous with the eternal covenant (see the literature review in Fischer 2005: 212–13). However, Rom-Shiloni (2003: 218- 21) has pointed out significant conceptual differences between Jeremiah’s language of “eternal” and “new.”

The “Eternal Covenant”

53

conversely, Ezekiel should be understood as a radicalization of Jeremiah’s position. It has become clear, however, that the notion of a ‫ ברית עולם‬is an integral part of the prophetic discourse in the exilic and early postexilic periods about the possibility of a permanent and unbreakable relationship between Yhwh and Israel. It is also important to note that in all three versions of the ‫ ברית עולם‬in Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Jeremiah a defining moment is the dwelling of Yhwh in and among Israel. All three prophets emphasize that because of this ‫ ברית עולם‬Israel will live securely on the land around Mount Zion and that they will be willing and able to live according to God’s law. This is particularly important with regard to our discussion of the Priestly understanding of ‫ברית עולם‬. Against the backdrop of these prophetic texts, the connection between the Sinai events and the eternal covenant in Exod 31:12–17 is not entirely surprising. If one assigns at least Exod 31:16–17 to P, this would simply mean that P participated in the exilic and postexilic conversation about the covenantal significance of the Sinai Torah. On the other hand, if one wanted to argue in favor of Zimmerli’s position, one would have to show why P, in contrast to contemporaneous prophecy, limited the eternal covenant to the primeval and ancestral periods of Israel’s history. This takes us back to our analysis of the P texts, now especially to the divine speeches before and after the flood as two signature texts of P’s theology.

The Divine Speeches in the Priestly Flood Narrative (Genesis 8:15–17; 9:1–17) As the prophetic references to the ‫ ברית עולם‬indicate, this term was not merely a rhetorical device but carried conceptual significance. It played a crucial role in the postexilic discussion about whether, how, and why there could be such a thing as an unbreakable covenant. I submit that the very same question stands in the background also of the Priestly code, with its three installments of a ‫ברית עולם‬. This, of course, raises the question what it is according to P that gives the covenant the potential of being eternally valid. The answer can be found in the divine speeches in Gen 8:15–17 and 9:1–17, which introduce and conclude the Priestly account of the flood: 1. Gen 8:15–17; 9:1–3.  God tells Noah to leave the ark and bring out with him all the living beings, followed by the blessing that Noah and his family receive. Interestingly, while humans are blessed in the same way as in Gen 1:28 and commissioned to be fruitful and multiply, the dominium terrae is not repeated after the flood. Given the parallels between Gen 1:26–28 and 9:1–3, it is striking that there is no mention of human “rule”

54

Andreas Schüle

anymore. 27 After the flood, humans are seen as a threat to the other living beings because now they are allowed to do what used to be prohibited before the flood, namely, kill animals for food. The status or cosmological significance of human life seems to have changed after the flood. Humans are not primarily rulers or God’s stewards anymore but rather what we would call the top of the food chain. 2. The second part of the divine speech shows even more explicit changes in the world’s system of order. Gen 9:4–6 includes a set of specific regulations that God implements to protect life. These laws operate at three different levels: (1) Killing in general is limited to the acquisition of food. (2) Human life is exempted from the mechanisms of the food chain because humans are created in the image of God which means that even animals will be punished when they kill humans. And (3) the life force, which resides in the blood stream of every living being, must be returned to God when a life is taken. Brief as these regulations are, they implement a completely new system of order that limits violence so that it will not threaten the rhythm and the abundance of life again (Schüle 2006: 260–69). This is also a system that anticipates cultic regulations as a way of maintaining the cyclical movement of life as something that comes from and returns to its creator. It seems safe to say that what we have here in Genesis 9 is a foreshadowing of the Priestly Torah in Leviticus 1–16. As scholars have observed before, P uses the Primeval History as a general framework for the cultic regulations that are revealed to Israel at Mount Sinai. Or put in different terms, P views the cult and its laws as the deep structure of creation (Schüle 2006: 74–83). 3. The third and final piece of the divine speech is the covenant with all flesh. It has a threefold structure: the covenant is first announced (“I am about to establish my covenant,” Gen 9:9), then implemented (“I [herewith] establish a covenant,” Gen 9:12), and finally reviewed (“the covenant that I have established,” Gen 9:17). To my knowledge, this is the only time in the Hebrew Bible that a covenant is implemented stepby-step, as it were. The other unique characteristic of this convent is that it would stand even if the world did not know about it. It is the result of a speech act of God that does not require any response or even awareness on the part of the living beings. This brief survey of the composition of the second divine speech with its careful distinctions between promise, law, and covenant puts us in a position to come back to our initial question about the ‫ברית עולם‬. The 27. Cf. Harland 1996: 206–7; Schüle 2006: 106–16; Schellenberg 2011: 59.

The “Eternal Covenant”

55

answer to why in the Priestly code the covenant can be ‫“( עולם‬eternal”) is precisely because P deliberately distinguishes between covenant and law. In P, these have become two different entities with distinct purposes. Textbooks on Genesis typically claim that the world after the flood is safe, so to speak, because of God’s covenant with Noah, but that is not entirely accurate. While the covenant is essentially God’s promise to refrain from drowning the world in another flood, the reason why the world will never again fill with violence in the way it did before the flood is because, now, there is a legal mechanism that punishes whoever violates the life-­ protecting laws that God establishes in Gen 9:4–6. Compared with the ‫ ברית עולם‬in the three Major Prophets, P does not share their expectation for any kind of dramatic change that will enable humankind in general or Israel in particular to fulfill the law as a covenantal obligation. While the prophets have an eschatological trajectory with the ‫ ברית עולם‬as the fulfillment of Israel’s covenantal history with God, P insists that God’s covenants have always been “eternal.” P is adamant about the fact that, by definition, every covenant that God establishes is eternal and that it is beyond human reach to alter that. Correspondingly, P takes a somewhat more realistic stance than the prophets regarding the human response to these covenants. For P, it is a reality that humankind in general and Israel in particular will not (always) be a faithful covenant partner. Post-diluvian humankind is no better than their pre-diluvian ancestors, and there is no indication that Israel stands out from the rest of the crowd. Historically, the Priestly and the prophetic versions of a ‫ ברית עולם‬both seem to be in agreement that, in light of the experience of the Babylonian exile, covenant, understood as a contract with mutual obligations, was not a viable model to conceive of the future relationship between God and Israel. However, while the prophets envision an Israel that will never again have the desire or ability to break God’s law and so violate the covenant, P carefully distinguishes between covenant and law. The reality that human beings shed other human beings’ blood is a punishable offense, but this does not annihilate the Noahic covenant. 28 P also seems to anticipate that, even after having gone through the Babylonian exile, Israel will break the law again, which, however, will not terminate the covenant. This is 28.  Knoppers (1998: 99) makes a similar observation with regard to the Davidic covenant in 2 Samuel 7 and Psalm 89. Knoppers notes that, even though God confirms David’s dynasty forever, this does not exempt his successors from obeying Yhwh: “The absolute promise of succession within a particular dynasty is a striking feature of the presentation of the Davidic promises in both Nathan’s oracle and in Psalm 89. In neither case, however, are the recipients of the promises devoid of obligations.”

56

Andreas Schüle

now particularly pertinent for those laws that also establish a sign of the covenant—circumcision and Sabbath observance; and here, too, P subtly disentangles covenantal and legal thinking. While there will be severe consequences if Israelites fail to abide by these two commandments, this will not affect the validity of the covenant. The language in Exod 31:16 is quite nuanced in this regard, precisely because the Sabbath is the sign of the covenant Israel is supposed to observe. 29 As with all three installments of a covenant in P, it is the covenant itself that defines the relationship between God and humankind/Israel and not the human response to it. Without the Sabbath, Israel would not be the worshiping community in whose midst the ‫ כבוד יהוה‬has its dwelling place on earth (Exodus 40). In this perspective, Sabbath observance is not a condition of a bilateral agreement. It is not a matter of give and take. Rather, Sabbath observance is presented here as something that Israel, in spite of its checkered history with God and in spite of its tendency to break the law, can do to hold on to the eternal covenant. 29.  It is important to note that ‫ ברית עולם‬in 31:17 stands in apposition to sabbath. The Sabbath is an eternal covenant. Thus, the best rendering here is “And the Israelites shall observe the Sabbath by keeping it throughout the ages; (it is) an eternal covenant.”

Bibliography Bautch, R. 2009 Glory and Power, Ritual and Relationship: The Sinai Covenant in the PostExilic Period. Library of Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Studies 471. London: T. & T. Clark. Blenkinsopp, J. 2002 Isaiah 40–55. Anchor Bible 19A. New York: Doubleday. Blum, E. 1990 Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 189. Berlin: de Gruyter. Dillman, A. 1897 Die Bücher Exodus und Levitikus. 3rd ed. Leipzig: Hirzel. Eynde, S. van den 1996 Keeping God’s Sabbath: Sign and Covenant (Exod 31,12–17). Pp. 501– 11 in Studies in the Book of Exodus, ed. M. Vervenne. Leuven: University Press. Fischer, G. 2005 Jeremia 26–52. Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament. Freiburg: Herder. Greenberg, M. 1997 Ezekiel 21–37. Anchor Bible 22A. New York: Doubleday.

The “Eternal Covenant”

57

Groß, W. 1993 Israel und die Völker: Die Krise des Yhwh-Volk-Konzepts im Jesajabuch. Pp. 149–67 in Der Neue Bund im Alten: Zur Bundestheologie der beiden Testamente, ed. E. Zenger. Quaestiones disputatae 146. Freiburg: Herder. 1998 “Rezeption” in Ex 31,12–17 und Lev 26, 39–45. Sprachliche Form und theologisch-konzeptionelle Leistung. Pp. 44–63 in Der ungekündigte Bund: Antworten des Neuen Testaments, ed. H. Frankemölle. Quaestiones disputatae 172. Freiburg: Herder. Harland, P. J. 1996 The Value of Human Life: A Study of the Story of the Flood (Genesis 6–9). Vetus Testamentum Supplement 64. Leiden: Brill. Janowski, B. 1990 Tempel und Schöpfung: Schöpfungstheologische Aspekte der priesterschriftlichen Heiligtumskonzeption. Jahrbuch für Biblische Theologie 5: 46–60. Jüngling, H. W. 1993 Eid und Bund in Ez 16–17. Pp. 113–48 in Der Neue Bund im Alten: Zur Bundestheologie der beiden Testamente, ed. E. Zenger. Quaestiones disputatae 146. Freiburg: Herder. Knohl, I. 1995 The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School. Minneapolis: Fortress. Knoppers, G. 1998 David’s Relation to Moses: The Contexts, Content and Conditions of the Davidic Promises. Pp. 91–118 in King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar, ed. J. Day. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 270. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Kutsko, J. F. 2000 Between Heaven and Earth: Divine Presence and Absence in the Book of Ezekiel. Brown Judaic Studies 7. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Mason, S. 2008 “Eternal Covenant” in the Pentateuch: The Contours of an Elusive Phrase. Library of the Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Studies 494. London: T. & T. Clark McBride, D., Jr. 1987 Polity of the Covenantal People: The Book of Deuteronomy. Interpretation 41: 229–44. Nihan, C. 2007 From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 25. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Olyan, S. M. 2005 Exodus 31:12–17: The Sabbath according to H, or the Sabbath according to P and H. Journal of Biblical Literature 142: 201–9. 2011 An Eternal Covenant with Circumcision as Its Sign: How Useful a Criterion for Dating and Source Analysis? Pp. 347–58 in The Pentateuch:

58

Andreas Schüle

International Perspectives on Current Research, ed. T. B. Dozeman, K. Schmid, and B. J. Schwartz. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 78. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Quack, J. F. 2012 Zur Beschneidung im Alten Ägypten. Pp. 561–651 in Menschenbilder und Körperkonzepte im Alten Israel, in Ägypten und im Alten Orient, ed. A. Berlejung, J. Dietrich, J. F. Quack. Orientalische Religionen in der Antike 9. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Rom-Shiloni, D. 2003 The Prophecy for “Everlasting Covenant” (Jeremiah 32:36—41): An Exilic Addition or a Deuteronomistic Redaction? Vetus Testamentum 53: 201–23. Ruwe, A. 1999 “Heiligkeitsgesetz” und “Priesterschrift.” Forschungen zum Alten Testament 26. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Schellenberg, A. 2011 Der Mensch als Bild Gottes? Zum Gedanken einer Sonderstellung des Menschen im Alten Testament und in weiteren altorientalischen Quellen. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 101. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich. Schüle, A. 2006 Der Prolog der hebräischen Bibel: Der literar- und theologiegeschichtliche Diskurs der Urgeschichte (Genesis 1–11). Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 86. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich. Stackert, J. 2011 Compositional Strata in the Priestly Strata: Exodus 31:12–17 and 35:1– 3. Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 11: Article 15. Online: http://www .jhsonline.org/Articles/article_162.pdf. Stoebe, H.J. 1964 “Jeremia, Prophet und Seelsorger.” Theologische Zeitschrift 28: 385–409. Timmer, D. C. 2009 Creation, Tabernacle, and Sabbath: The Sabbath Frame of Exodus 31:12– 17; 35:1–3 in Exegetical and Theological Perspective. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 227. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Weippert, H. 1979 Negative Anthropologie: Das Wort vom neuen Bund in Jer XXXI 31–34. Vetus Testamentum 29: 336–51. Zenger, E. 1987 Gottes Bogen in den Wolken: Untersuchungen zu Komposition und Theologie der priesterschriftlichen Urgeschichte. 2nd ed. Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 112. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. Zimmerli, Walter. 1963 Gottes Offenbarung: Gesammelte Aufsätze. Theologische Bücherei 9. Munich: Kaiser.

Correlating the Covenants in Exodus 24 and Exodus 34 Wolfgang Oswald Universität Tübingen

Introduction Writing on the covenants in Exodus 24 and 34 in a volume entitled Covenant in the Persian Period is not self-evident. In the long history of research on the so-called Sinai pericope, these texts were routinely dated to much earlier periods of the history of Israel, at least to the Monarchic era, sometimes even to the pre-Monarchic era. 1 As we all know, in recent decades several new models for the formation of the Pentateuch and the history of Israel have been propounded. These models differ among each other in many respects but most of them share a common feature in that they date these texts considerably later in comparison to the traditional models. Although the dating of texts sometimes tends to attain the status of a shibboleth, taken by itself it is not very meaningful. The crucial point is: what is the difference between, say, the Assyrian period and the Persian period that makes the latter the better scenario for a certain text? And which feature of the given text makes a Persian-period origin more probable than an earlier origin? Applied to the Mountain-of-God pericope, we must admit that these chapters provide severe obstacles for an easy solution. So, what can be done in a short essay? It is impossible to review the history of research and likewise to discuss all of the pertinent loci in detail. Rather, I prefer to present my reading of the Mountain-of-God pericope as a whole from a mainly diachronic perspective with special attention to the covenants in Exodus 24 and 34. I hope that this comprehensive approach will provide an overall image that will make many of the exegetical decisions reasonable—at least to some extent. The diachronic model I consider to be the most appropriate for the Pentateuch is that of composition history. I do not use the venerable 1.  Overviews are given by Houtman 1996: 426–33; Oswald 1998: 1–19.

59

60

Wolfgang Oswald

Documentary Hypothesis, and likewise I do not apply redactional criticism according to which the texts evolved in a multitude of small additions and expansions. Rather, I assume four extensive compositional layers in Exodus 18–40: a pre-Deuteronomistic layer, which I refer to as the Mountain-of-God narrative; a Deuteronomistic layer, which I consider part of the Deuteronomistic History; a Priestly layer comprising the entire Hexateuch; and a post-Priestly layer, which finally constitutes the Torah. For our present purpose, only the pre-Deuteronomistic and the Deuteronomistic strata are relevant. 2

Exodus 18–24 Let us turn to the second half of the book of Exodus. In its final stage, there are two blocks of prescriptive texts that take up most of the space, the sanctuary texts in Exodus 25–31 and 35–40 and the so-called Covenant Code in Exodus 20–23. In case of the sanctuary texts there is a long-standing consensus that they belong to the priestly stratum of the Pentateuch and were incorporated into the Mountain-of-God pericope in the Babylonian period at earliest. Many recent authors rather prefer the Persian period, 3 and so do I. As to the so-called Covenant Code, the situation is much more complicated, because according to the classical model of pentateuchal criticism the code as such would stem from early times while its insertion into the present context would have been part of the final redaction of the Pentateuch. This reconstruction would result in a two-track history of transmission: for several decades or even centuries the Covenant Code would have been transmitted without any narrative context while for the same period of time the Mountain-of-God pericope would not have exhibited any law code. 4 Amazingly enough, this striking dichotomy has survived all the changes in pentateuchal criticism. Even though almost no stone has been left unturned, this reconstruction of the literary history still seems plausible to some scholars (Otto 1995: 387–89; Levinson 2011a: 295). Let us assume for a moment that there ever was a Sinai pericope without sanctuary texts, without Covenant Code, and without Decalogue. 2.  For a more elaborate outline of my assessment of the genesis of the Pentateuch, see Oswald 2009: 73–228. 3.  Kratz 2000: 248; Gertz 2006: 236–37; Schmid 2008: 146–50. 4. Consider Wellhausen’s famous dictum: “Die wahre und alte Bedeutung des Sinai ist ganz unabhängig von der Gesetzgebung. Er war der Sitz der Gottheit, der heilige Berg” (“the true and ancient significance of Sinai is completely independent of law-giving. It was the seat of the deity, the holy mountain”; Wellhausen 1895: 349).

Correlating the Covenants in Exodus

61

Most reconstructions of this type commence with Israel’s sojourning at the mountain in Exod 19:2, include the theophany in Exod 19:16 as well as the sacrificial ceremony in 24:3–8, and conclude—in some versions—with the vision of God on the mountain in Exod 24:9–11. 5 What could have been the goal of this supposed narrative? Why would God appear on the scene? Or to put it in the words of Bernard Renaud: “Une théophanie pourquoi?” (Renaud 1991: 96). A wide range of proposals have been made: the experience of “awed submission” (McCarthy 1978: 274), or of the “mysterium tremendum” (Mittmann 1975: 151–55), or the encounter­with the divine “You” (Renaud 1991: 106), or the evocation of fear of God (Schmitt 2009: 163–64). All these proposals have the same flaw: they all lack an activity on the side of God. There are thunders and flashes surrounding the mountain signifying the presence of God, but then God does not do anything. This would be unparalleled in the Hebrew Bible (Oswald 1998: 104). One could propose as a working hypothesis that God appears before the people in order to make a covenant, but this is hard to maintain because all references to ‫‘ ברית‬covenant/treaty’ in Exodus 18–24 are associated with the law. This is apparent in Exod 24:7 where the term ‫ספר הברית‬ ‘book of the covenant’ appears. But the other instances of ‫ ברית‬in the narrative (Exod 19:5, 24:8) stand in close connection to 24:7. So, there is no ‫ ברית‬without law in the Sinai pericope. Thus, the only public activity of God, the only possible purpose for the theophany, is law-giving. There is simply no alternative provided. But is law-giving necessarily connected with covenant-making? A closer look at Exod 24:3–8 shows that the people adopt the law two times. The first time, they adopt just the law (Exod 24:3); the second time the law is part and parcel of the covenant (24:7). The second resolution is part of Exod 24:4–8, which includes the writing of the law, the consecration of the people, and the covenant ceremony. This latter scenario corresponds to Exod 19:3b–8, where the whole scene is anticipated including the statement of the people: “Everything that Yhwh has spoken we will do” (Exod 19:8; compare with 24:7). These two paragraphs (Exod 19:3b–8 and 24:4–8) function as a frame around the narrative (Blum 1990: 92; Houtman 1996: 434–36). In a synchronic reading, one would say they provide a covenantal frame and thus make sure that the whole event is to be understood in terms of covenant. In a diachronic reading, these two passages reinterpret the older narrative 5.  See the research overview in Oswald 1998: 102–9.

62

Wolfgang Oswald

of law-giving as covenant-making (Levin 1985: 182; Oswald 2009: 126). This view is supported by the observation that neither the so-called Covenant Code nor the Decalogue by themselves contain the idea of covenant. As an interim result we have established two literary layers: the basic narrative strand, which is the pre-Deuteronomistic Mountain-of-God narrative, and the covenantal expansion which is part of the Deuteronomistic stratum of the Pentateuch. The Deuteronomistic character of Exod 19:3b–8 is evident from the combination of the motifs ‫‘ עם סגולה‬treasured possession’ (Exod 19:5 || Deut 7:6, 14:2, 26:18), ‫גוי קדוׁש‬/‫‘ עם‬holy people’ (Exod 19:6 || Deut 7:6, 14:2, 26:19), and ‫‘ ברית‬covenant/treaty’ (Exod 19:5 || Deut 7:9, 26:16–19). Based on the above observations, the basic narrative strand of Exodus 18–24 may be outlined in the following way: introduction of a two-stage judicial system (18:1–7, 13–27); God giving Moses orders for the preparation of the people (19:2b, 3a, 10–11); Moses transmitting these orders to the people (19:14–15); theophany and advancement of the people to the mountain (19:16–17, 18bβ, 19a); promulgation by Yhwh of the oldest version of the Decalogue as direct address to the people (20:1–3, 5a, 7, 12–17); withdrawal of the people (20:18b, 19, 21); Yhwh communicating the laws (‫ )מׁשפטים ודברים‬to Moses (20:24–23:19); Moses communicating the laws (‫ )מׁשפטים ודברים‬to the people and resolution of the people (24:3; Oswald 2009: 86–95; 2010). If this reconstruction is correct, what does this mean for the motif of covenant in Exodus 18–24? It reveals that the covenant motif is not the basic concept in this text, it is not the catalyst for everything else. 6 Rather, the covenant motif has a reinforcing function. It is strictly connected to the basic event of law-giving. The covenant motif in the Mountain-of-God pericope is the expression not of an ubiquitous covenantal thinking but of a juridical device to deal better with the law. In my view, the covenant passages in the Mountain-of-God pericope and in Deuteronomy are the nucleus of what was to become the covenant theology in later times. That Israel conceptualized its relation to God by means of covenantal terminology belongs to the aftermath of these texts, not to their presuppositions. But when were these texts created? When was the basic narrative of law-giving written, and when was the covenantal legal concept inserted? As to the first point, it is necessary to recall that in the ancient Near East there was no such thing as law-giving. The king in his role as monarch incorporated law, righteousness, public order, and peace. He may have 6. Pace McCarthy 1978: 277–98; compare also the overview in Bautch 2009: 10–42.

Correlating the Covenants in Exodus

63

occasionally published edicts for one-time application, but he would not have published law books with permanent legal force. The famous Codex Hammurapi, for example, is not a law book in the later sense, in that the stipulations become effective law by publication on the stele. Rather, the prologue proclaims the king as having established right and justice through his governance, and the stipulations on the stele merely represent one aspect of his personal governance. 7 But this is not the case in the Mountain-of-God pericope. There is no king to execute right and justice; on the contrary, the law book is passed by the people. In the world of the narrative after the resolution of the people in Exod 24:3, it has become effective law among the Israelites. 8 This means the narrative does not adopt a concept from the ancient Near East; rather, it adopts a concept that is common in the Mediterranean world. The Greek citizen-states were organized in the same manner: one of the leading figures made a proposal, the case was discussed in the assembly of the people and finally approved by consensual decision. This is exactly the case in Exod 24:3: Moses introduces the law and the people approve it “with one voice,” or consensually. 9 In Exod 24:3, Israel attains the status of a polity without a king, constituted by a common basic law in which every citizen is equally responsible to the law. The law—or rather the constitution—has taken the place of the king. Let us assume that this story was penned during the monarchy. This could have been only a utopia, 10 and even more, only a clandestine utopia, because it would have been dangerous to publish this sort of assault on the king. But why should one include detailed criminal law and compensation law in a private vision? Who could have written such a voluminous work in secret? Who could have afforded to pay the scribes from his private purse for such an effort? The whole idea is highly improbable. 7.  Lemche 1995: 1701: “Justice was divine business given to man from the Gods and effectuated by their representative on earth, the gracious king.” See also Renger 1994; Assmann 2000: 178–84; Otto 2000. 8. Pace Jackson 2000: 139–41, who interprets the scene as a “ritual use” of the book: “This is a public reading, associated with a festival or some special sacred event, the object of which is fulfilled by the act of public reading itself.” Nothing in this description applies to Exod 24:3–8. Here, the reading of the law is not part of a festival but the main issue; and its purpose is not the reading itself but the resolution of the people. Likewise, the scene depicted in Deut 31:9–13 is no ritual. 9. For an introduction to the principles of the Greek polis, see Welwei 1998: 9–18; Stahl 2003: 201–27. 10.  Some scholars maintain the view that the Pentateuchal laws were merely a private vision without public validity; see e.g., Levinson 2011b: 82–84; Otto 2006.

64

Wolfgang Oswald

The alternative is that this composition was written when it was no longer a clandestine affair but a public affair, in a time when there was a public demand for a narrative such as this, in a time where there was a need for a constitution. To me, this seems much more reasonable. The idea is that the Mosaic scenario depicted in the narrative is analogous to the post-Monarchic use of the narrative. Just as the people in the narrative assemble and enact the law, the audience of the narrative is expected to give their approval in order to make the so-called Covenant Code effective law among them. Therefore, not only do the Israelites of the narrative organize themselves as a polity but the assembled audience of the narrative does so as well. Thus, we are directed to the post-Monarchic Period. Actually, this is no news. Ever since Wellhausen, most scholars assumed that the combination of law code and narrative was not fabricated before the exilic or postexilic times. By the way, the same is true for Deuteronomy. But, as I said above, the classical Pentateuch models presumed a long prehistory of independent components. This may be true for the collection of judgments (‫ )מׁשפטים‬Exod 21:12–22:16, but not for the other parts of the so-called Covenant Code and likewise not for the narrative. 11 In other words: the pre-Deuteronomistic narrative and the pre-Deuteronomistic Covenant Code were composed together in the early post-Monarchic Period, while the covenantal expansions suggest a somewhat later origin. 12 I deliberately avoid the usual term exilic times because I don’t want to walk into the trap that was laid out by some ancient authors, who wanted their readers to believe that the history of Judah was exclusively continued in the Babylonian exile. The Mountain of God that plays a crucial role in the law-giving rather points at Zion (Utzschneider 2013: 118–19). But why was the adoption of the law transformed into an act of covenant making? In the new scenario, the law is subordinated to the covenant. Reshaping the passing of the law as covenant-making relegates the law to the second rank. To keep the covenant is the primary duty, whatever the content of the covenant may be. Therefore, the second resolution reads: “All that Yhwh has spoken we will do, and we will hear” (Exod 24:7). Whereas the first resolution of the people (24:3) refers back to the foregoing narrative (‫ ;מׁשפטים‬Exod 21:1), the second is very unspecific and 11.  In distinguishing the ‫ מׁשפטים‬from the rest of the so-called Covenant Code, I roughly follow Westbrook 1994: 15; compare also Jackson 2006: 431–78. 12.  Recently, Christoph Koch has convincingly shown that the concept of a covenant between God and the people unmediated by the king cannot have been developed in a monarchic setting (Koch 2008: 317). The same is true for law-giving. Both concepts are essentially anti-monarchic.

Correlating the Covenants in Exodus

65

deliberately comprehensive. It allows for the law being altered or even replaced, of course not by the people but by the suzerain of the covenant.

Exodus 34 This leads us to the second narrative of covenant making, which is Exod 34:10–28a. This is a much disputed text, and again Wellhausen is the source of all trouble. 13 He thought that the Yahwistic source should include some kind of Decalogue, and his claim was that this piece would contain an ancient variant of it. Ever since Wellhausen, scholars have tried to detect older strata in the given text, 14 unconvincingly in my view. On the other hand, there is a line of interpretation that considers Exod 34:10– 28 to be a relatively late and largely coherent text, 15 and more precisely, in my view, a Deuteronomistic text. 16 In what follows, beginning from 34:28b and extending through 34:35, we find a Priestly text. The list of stipulations can be divided in two paragraphs, the first of them (34:11–16) regulating the relationship to the foreign nations and the second (34:18–26) regulating the pilgrimage festivals and related sacrificial matters. The central position between the two blocks is reserved for the prohibition of idol-making (34:17), certainly in order to prevent the repetition of the apostasy to the “Golden Calf ” (‫עגל מסכה‬, 32:4, 8 → ‫אלהי מסכה‬, 34:17). As for the first part, the issues raised therein are typical for Deuteronomistic texts, and in this concentration and combination, only for Deuteronomistic texts. For our purpose, it is sufficient to consider central Deuteronomistic texts such as Exod 23:20–33, Deuteronomy 7, Joshua 23, and Judges 2–3. • List of the peoples to be expelled (Exod 34:11): Exod 23:23, Deut 7:1 (+ Girgashites), Judg 3:5 • Prohibition of treaty-making (Exod 34:12, 15): Exod 23:32, Deut 7:2, Josh 23:12 (hinted), Judg 2:2 • Warning about entrapment (Exod 34:12): Exod 23:33, Deut 7:16, Josh 23:13, Judg 2:3 13.  Wellhausen 1963: 84: The narrative Exodus 34 “will nicht die dritte, sondern die erste und einzige Gottesoffenbarung am Sinai erzählen” (“does not intend to relate the third but rather the first and only revelation of God at Sinai”). 14.  For example, Otto 1975: 269–79; Crüsemann 1992: 138–47; Konkel 2008: 245–300. 15.  Blum 2010b; Gesundheit 1998; Gesundheit 2012: 36–43; Carr 2001; Köckert 2002. 16.  Gesundheit 2012: 39–40 reviews studies that assign Exod 34:11–26 to a deuteronomic/Deuteronomistic author.

66

Wolfgang Oswald • Destruction of non-Israelite cultic sites (Exod 34:13): Exod 23:24, Deut 7:5, Judg 2:2 • Prohibition of worshiping other gods (Exod 34:14): Exod 23:24, Deut 7:4, Josh 23:7, Judg 2:11 • Prohibition of foreign marriages (Exod 34:16): Deut 7:3, Josh 23:12

The Deuteronomistic provenance of these stipulations has been questioned on terminological grounds. One names the singular ‫‘ יׁשב הארץ‬inhabitant of the country’ (Exod 34:12, 15) as distinct from the more common plural ‫‘ יׁשבי הארץ‬inhabitants of the country’, and likewise the unique singular ‫‘ אל אחר‬other God’ (34:14) as distinct from the frequent plural ‫‘ אלהים אחרים‬other gods’. 17 But both singular forms can be explained from the context. The singular ‫ יׁשב הארץ‬is not uncommon; it can be used when juxtaposed to a singular gentilic as in Gen 34:30, 50:11; Judg 11:21; 2 Sam 5:6, and this is also the case in Exod 34:12, 15, where the list of the peoples of the land, all in singular, precede. And the singular ‫ אל אחר‬seems to be an attraction of the singular formulation ‫כי יהוה קנא ׁשמו אל קנא הוא‬ ‘because Yhwh, whose name is jealous, is a jealous god’ immediately following (Köckert 2002: 22–23). But whatever the reasons may be for these deviations, they are only a matter of style. No conceptual differences with Deuteronomistic texts can be observed. The second part commences with the festival of unleavened bread (‫)חג המצות‬, which is here combined with the levy of the firstborn (Exod 34:18–20). The dating of the festival ‫‘ למועד חדׁש האביב‬in the season of the ears’ and the combination of the two occasions are only found in Deuteronomistic texts, namely, Exod 13:3–7, 11–16 and Deut 15:19–16:8 (Utzschneider 2013: 284–85). 18 Like in other Deuteronomistic texts, the killing of the firstborn in Egypt is linked not with the Passover but with the firstborn levy and with the festival of the unleavened bread. Therefore, Passover is not mentioned in Exod 34:18–20 but separately in 34:25. There it is called ‫‘ זבח חג הפסח‬slaughter of the pilgrimage festival of Passover’, which is a decidedly Deuteronomistic expression, because only in Deuteronomistic texts Passover is considered to be a pilgrimage festival at the central sanctuary. The summer festival (Exod 34:22a) is called ‫‘ חג ׁשבעת‬festival of the weeks’ as in Deut 16:10 but unlike Exod 23:16, where it is named ‫חג הקציר‬ ‘festival of the harvest’. On the other hand, the autumn festival (34:22b) 17.  These and other arguments were recently elaborated in Konkel 2008: 200–201. 18.  In the Covenant Code, the dating of the festival of unleavened bread (Exod 23:15) seems to be a Deuteronomistic expansion, whereas the Priestly festival calendar (Lev 23:5–8) sets the date by counting months and days.

Correlating the Covenants in Exodus

67

is called ‫‘ חג האסיף‬festival of the ingathering’ as in Exod 23:16 but unlike Deut 16:13, where it is called ‫‘ חג הסכת‬festival of the booths’. The agreement between Exodus 34 and Deuteronomy 16 in the case of the summer festival weighs heavy because it pertains not only to a name but to a certain way of fixing the date. On the other hand, the difference between Exod 34:22b and Deut 16:13 in naming the autumn festival seems to be only a matter of terminology, in Exod 34:22b apparently induced by the usage of the Covenant Code. Likewise, the stipulation concerning the weekly day of rest (Exod 34:21) uses a terminology similar to the corresponding law of the Covenant Code (Exod 23:12): ‫‘ היום הׁשביעי‬the seventh day’. But this is not a distinctive feature of either Deuteronomistic or pre-Deuteronomistic texts. Rather, the terms ‫‘ יום הׁשבת‬day of sabbath’ and ‫‘ היום הׁשביעי‬the seventh day’ are used alternately in Deuteronomistic texts (Deut 5:12, 14). The repeated resumption of formulations found in the Covenant Code suggests that Exod 34:11–26 was composed for the given context (Blum 2010b: 168; Gesundheit 2012: 36). The correspondences with Deuteronomistic texts suggest that this list of stipulations and the covenant associated with it belong to the Deuteronomistic stratum of the Pentateuch. If it is true that both covenants in the Mountain-of-God pericope are Deuteronomistic, one should expect a certain relation between them. In other words, the Deuteronomistic writers have placed these two covenants deliberately in correlation to each other. But for what purpose? One might paraphrase the Deuteronomistic narrative in Exodus 24–34 in the following manner: first covenant, breach of covenant, second covenant. This paraphrase is certainly not wrong, but it is not entirely accurate, first because in the narrative the incident with the Golden Calf is never called “breach of covenant,” and second because the covenant in Exodus 34 is never called a “renewed covenant” or a “second covenant.” In the narrative, the offense of Israel is circumscribed in the following manner: “They quickly turned aside from the way that I commanded them” (Exod 32:8) and “you have sinned a great sin” (32:30). The phrase “breach of covenant” is avoided and presumably intentionally so. As opposed to worshiping other gods, the worship of Yhwh in the form of an idol is considered a trespass of a commandment and a great sin but not a breach of the covenant. Therefore, the covenant of Exodus 34 is no new covenant and no second covenant; it is just a covenant. Covenants are nowhere counted or related to each other as old and new. 19 19.  Jer 31:31 has a “new covenant,” but the opposed covenant with the fathers is neither a first covenant nor an old covenant.

68

Wolfgang Oswald

The point is not old covenant vs. new covenant but rather old law vs. new law. As any covenant, each of the two covenants at issue here has a content, a subject matter. In the case of Exodus 24, it is the so-called Covenant Code; in case of Exodus 34, it is the so-called covenant words, 34:11–26. The novelty in Exodus 34 is not the covenant but the law. The law in force is no longer the so-called Covenant Code but the covenant words 34:11–26. The covenant of Exodus 34 ensures that the older law (the so-called Covenant Code) becomes inoperative and a new law becomes effective. Certainly, because of their brevity the covenant words Exod 34:11–26 cannot be called a law code. But they can be considered to be a summary of the law code of Deuteronomy. As shown above, all central themes of Deuteronomy appear in these stipulations. Thus, the correlation of the two covenants and thereby the two law codes solves a problem in the logic of the law-giving in the Pentateuch: which law is effective law? 20 By making the covenant in Exod 34:27, this problem is solved in a proleptic manner. Because the covenant words of Exod 34:11–26 function as a summary of the laws in Deut 12–26, the covenant-making serves as a prolepsis to the covenant ceremony in Deut 29:9–14. Taking into account the Deuteronomistic narratives in Exodus and in Deuteronomy, these authors apply two different literary strategies in order to achieve the same goal, that is, the replacement of the Covenant Code by the law of Deuteronomy. In Deuteronomy, where the Deuteronomists are free to formulate their views, it is said that only the Decalogue was publicly pronounced at the Mountain of God, whereas everything else was communicated to Moses in private (Deut 5:31). This private portion of the speech is identical to the law code that Moses communicates to the Israelites 40 years later at the banks of the river Jordan. According to this account, there never was a Covenant Code, and there is nothing that has to be replaced when the law of Deuteronomy becomes effective. In the book of Exodus, on the other hand, the Deuteronomists are not free to formulate because they have to deal with the existing pre-Deuteronomistic Mountain-of-God narrative. What they did is (1) transform the law-giving in Exodus 20–24 into a covenant-making, (2) add the transgression of the prohibition of idol-making, and (3) introduce another covenant on the ba20.  These considerations are restricted to the pre-Priestly Pentateuch. The insertion of the Priestly laws change the constellation once more. On that point, see tentatively Oswald 2009: 190–93.

Correlating the Covenants in Exodus

69

sis of a summary of the Deuteronomistic laws. Viewed from the end, both accounts result in the establishment of the legal force of Deuteronomy.

The Relation between the Covenant Code and Deuteronomy The issue raised here is the relation between Covenant Code and Deuteronomy. Recently, this relation has been construed as an act of interpretation: Deuteronomy is said to be an interpretion of the Covenant Code. According to Eckart Otto, this relation is made explicit in Deut 1:5 by the phrase ‫הואיל מׁשה באר את־התורה הזאת‬. Otto claims that the verb ‫ באר‬here means ‘to interpret’ or ‘to explain’, while the term ‫‘ את־התורה הזאת‬this torah/law’ would refer to the laws revealed at Mount Sinai. 21 Assuming this to be true, Deuteronomy would be an exegesis of the Sinaitic laws. However, this opinion is much disputed, first because many scholars construe the verb ‫ באר‬as ‘to promulgate’ or ‘to enact’, 22 and second because according to most commentators the term ‫ את־התורה הזאת‬refers to what follows. 23 According to Bernard Levinson, the relation between Covenant Code and Deuteronomy is “literary recycling” (Levinson 1998: 33). He contends that the author of Deuteronomy tried to formulate his program by using keywords from the older Covenant Code, in order “to retain the ostensible validity of the older sacrificial norm” (Levinson 1998: 33). In Otto’s model, the two law codes seem to stand side by side, whereas in Levinson’s view Deuteronomy replaces the Covenant Code. The above analysis tends to support Levinson’s opinion. Be this as it may, both Otto’s and Levinson’s expositions have in common that the author of Deuteronomy is supposed to have defined the relation to the older Covenant Code in a very subtle manner. They claim that this relation is covertly constituted by small hints and fine allusions, only detectable for learned scribes. Because of this assumed subtextual operating principle, it is not easy to decide whether the author of Deuteronomy actually meant it the way Levinson and Otto suggest. But what is much more important, the sort of the texts in question, namely, legal corpora, cannot be legitimized by covert allusions. Rather, they need overt argumentation because these are publicly read and 21.  Otto 2005: 274–80, including a discussion of other opinions. 22.  In addition to the literature cited in Otto’s essay, see Schaper 2007, and most recently Finsterbusch 2012: 53. 23.  Lohfink 1990: 311; Schaper 2007: 228; Heckl 2004: 66; Blum 2010a: 393–96.

70

Wolfgang Oswald

commonly­observed texts (Exod 24:3, 7; Deut 31:9–13; Neh 8:8, 18; 13:1). Public law is not a playground for witty punning and academic sophistication; in this field, there is occasion and necessity for clear statements. And both the Mountain-of-God pericope and Deuteronomy were composed in order to serve as public law. Therefore, I contend that the relation between Covenant Code and Deuteronomy was established explicitly and obviously. And this is exactly what happens in Exodus 24 and 34. Finally, taking up the term Persian period, we may ask when the compositions at issue were drafted. In my opinion, the Mountain-of-God narrative with its law code should be considered the first attempt to establish a semi-autonomous citizen-state-like polity in post-Monarchic Judah. This would point to the Babylonian period. In comparison, the Deuteronomistic composition with its covenant theology and with its elaborate system of offices reflects a considerably advanced state of institutionalization; therefore, we should take the Persian period into consideration.

Bibliography Assmann, J. 2000 Herrschaft und Heil: Politische Theologie in Ägypten, Israel und Europa. Munich: Hanser. Bar-On, S.: see Gesundheit, S. Bautch, R. J. 2009 Glory and Power, Ritual and Relationship: The Sinai Covenant in the Postexilic Period. Library of the Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Studies 471. London: T. & T. Clark. Blum, E. 1990 Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft189. Berlin: de Gruyter. 2010a Pentateuch—Hexateuch—Enneateuch? Oder: Woran erkennt man ein literarisches Werk in der hebräischen Bibel? Pp. 375–404 in Textgestalt und Komposition: Exegetische Beiträge zu Tora und Vordere Propheten, ed. W. Oswald. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 69. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 2010b Das sog. “Privilegrecht” in Exodus 34,11–26: Ein Fixpunkt der Komposition des Exodusbuches? Pp. 157–76 in Textgestalt und Komposition: Exegetische Beiträge zu Tora und Vordere Propheten, ed. W. Oswald. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 69. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Carr, D. M. 2001 Method in Determination of Direction of Dependence: An Empirical Test of Criteria Applied to Exodus 34,11–26 and Its Parallels. Pp. 107– 40 in Gottes Volk am Sinai: Untersuchungen zu Ex 32–34 und Dtn 9–10, ed. M. Köckert and E. Blum. Veröffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie 18. Gütersloh: Chr. Kaiser and Gütersloher Verlagshaus.

Correlating the Covenants in Exodus

71

Crüsemann, F. 1992 Die Tora: Theologie und Sozialgeschichte des alttestamentlichen Gesetzes. Munich: Chr. Kaiser. Finsterbusch, K. 2012 Deuteronomium: Eine Einführung. Uni-Taschenbücher 3626. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Gertz, J. C., ed. 2006 Grundinformation Altes Testament: Eine Einführung in Literatur, Religion und Geschichte des Alten Testaments. Uni-Taschenbücher 2745. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Gesundheit, S. 1998 The Festival Calendars in Exodus XXIII 14–19 and XXXIV 18–26. Vetus Testamentum 48: 161–95. (Published under the name Shimon Bar-On.) 2012 Three Times a Year. Studies on Festival Legislation in the Pentateuch. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 82. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Heckl, R. 2004 Moses Vermächtnis: Kohärenz, literarische Intention und Funktion von Dtn 1–3. Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 9. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt. Houtman, C. 1996 Exodus. Historical Commentary on the Old Testament. Kampen: Kok. Jackson, B. S. 2000 Studies in the Semiotics of Biblical Law. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 314. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. 2006 Wisdom-Laws: A Study of the Mishpatim of Exodus 21:1–22:16. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Koch, C. 2008 Vertrag, Treueid und Bund: Studien zur Rezeption des altorientalischen Vertragsrechts im Deuteronomium und zur Ausbildung der Bundestheologie im Alten Testament. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 383. Berlin: de Gruyter. Köckert, M. 2002 Wie kam das Gesetz an den Sinai? Pp. 13–27 in Vergegenwärtigung des Alten Testaments: Beiträge zur biblischen Hermeneutik: Festschrift für Rudolf Smend zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. C. Bultmann. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Konkel, M. 2008 Sünde und Vergebung: Eine Rekonstruktion der Redaktionsgeschichte der hinteren Sinaiperikope (Exodus 32–34) vor dem Hintergrund aktueller Pentateuchmodelle. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 58. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Kratz, R. G. 2000 Die Komposition der erzählenden Bücher des Alten Testaments: Grundwissen der Bibelkritik. Uni-Taschenbücher 2157. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Lemche, N. P. 1995 Justice in Western Asia in Antiquity, or: Why No Laws Were Needed! Chicago-Kent Law Review 70: 1695–1716.

72

Wolfgang Oswald

Levin, Christoph 1985 Der Dekalog am Sinai. Vetus Testamentum 35: 165–91. Levinson, B. M. 1998 Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2011a Is the Covenant Code an Exilic Composition? A Response to John Van Seters. Pp. 276–330 in “The Right Chorale”: Studies in Biblical Law and Interpretation. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 2011b Deuteronomy’s Conception of Law as an “Ideal Type”: A Missing Chapter in the History of Constitutional Law. Pp. 52–86 in “The Right Chorale”: Studies in Biblical Law and Interpretation. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Lohfink, N. 1990 Die Sicherung der Wirksamkeit des Gotteswortes durch das Prinzip der Schriftlichkeit der Tora und durch das Prinzip der Gewaltenteilung nach den Ämtergesetzen des Buches Deuteronomium (Dt 16,18–18,22). Pp. 305–23 in Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur I. Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbände 8. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. McCarthy, D. 1978 Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents and in the Old Testament. 2nd ed. Analecta biblica 21a. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Mittmann, S. 1975 Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3 literarkritisch und traditionsgeschichtlich untersucht. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 139. Berlin: de Gruyter. Otto, E. 1975 Das Mazzotfest in Gilgal. Bëitrage zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament 107. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. 1995 Gesetzesfortschreibung und Pentateuchredaktion: Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 107: 373–92. 2000 Kodifizierung und Kanonisierung von Rechtssätzen in keilschriftlichen und biblischen Rechtssammlungen. Pp. 77–124 in La codification des lois dans l’Antiquité: Actes du Colloque de Strasbourg 27–29 novembre 1997, ed. E. Lévy. Travaux du Centre de Recherche sur le Prôche-Orient et la Grèce Antiques 16. Paris: Boccard. 2005 Mose, der erste Schriftgelehrte: Deuteronomium 1,5 in der Fabel des Pentateuch. Pp. 273–84 in L‘Ecrit et l’Esprit: Festschrift für Adrian Schenker, ed. Dieter Böhler. Orbis biblicus et orientalis 214. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 2006 Staat—Gemeinde—Sekte: Soziallehren des antiken Judentums. Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 12: 312–43. Oswald, W. 1998 Israel am Gottesberg: Eine Untersuchung zur Literargeschichte der vorderen Sinaiperikope Ex 19–24 und deren historischem Hintergrund. Orbis biblicus et orientalis 159. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag.

Correlating the Covenants in Exodus

73

2009 Staatstheorie im Alten Israel: Der politische Diskurs im Pentateuch und in den Geschichtsbüchern des Alten Testaments. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. 2010 Early Democracy in Ancient Judah: Considerations on Ex 18 – 24 with an Outlook on Dtn 16 – 18. Communio Viatorum 52: 121–35. Renaud, B. 1991 La Théophanie du Sinaï, Ex 19–24: Exégèse et Théologie. Cahiers de la Revue biblique 30. Paris: Gabalda. Renger, J. 1994 Noch einmal: Was war der ‘Kodex’ Hammurapi—Ein erlassenes Gesetz oder ein Rechtsbuch? Pp. 27–59 in Rechtskodifizierung und soziale Normen im interkulturellen Vergleich, ed. H.-J. Gehrke. ScriptOralia (A) 66, A, Altertumswissenschaftliche Reihe 15. Tübingen: Narr. Schaper, J. 2007 The “Publication” of Legal Texts in Ancient Judah. Pp. 225–36 in The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance, ed. G. N. Knoppers and B. M. Levinson. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Schmid, K. 2008 Literaturgeschichte des Alten Testaments: Eine Einführung. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Schmitt, H.-C. 2009 “Das Gesetz aber ist neben eingekommen”: Spätdeuteronomistische nachpriesterschriftliche Redaktion und ihre vorexilische Vorlage in Ex 19–20*. Pp. 155–70 in “Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu üben” (Gen 18,19): Studien zur altorientalischen und biblischen Rechtsgeschichte, zur Religionsgeschichte Israels und zur Religionssoziologie. Festschrift für Eckart Otto zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. R. Achenbach and M. Arneth. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 13. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Stahl, M. 2003 Gesellschaft und Staat bei den Griechen: Archaische Zeit. Uni-Taschenbücher 2430. Schöningh: Paderborn. Utzschneider, H., and Oswald, W. 2013 Exodus 1–15. Internationale Exegetische Kommentar zum Alten Testament. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Wellhausen, J. 1886 Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels. 4th ed. Berlin: Reimer. 1963 Die Composition des Hexateuchs. 4th ed. Berlin: de Gruyter. Welwei, K.-W. 1998 Die griechische Polis: Verfassung und Gesellschaft in archaischer und klassischer Zeit. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Steiner. Westbrook, R. 1994 What Is the Covenant Code? Pp. 15–36 in Theory and Method in Biblical and Cuneiform Law: Revision, Interpretation, and Development, ed. B. M. Levinson. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Repr., 2006.

The Covenant in Leviticus 26 A Concept of Admonition and Redemption Thomas Hieke Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz

Introduction Based on older traditions, theologians of the early Second Temple period cast important issues in written texts that later on became Scripture. Their effect on emerging Judaism and—much later—Christianity was great. The metaphor “covenant” is a significant part of this process and hence it must be studied in all parts of biblical literature. This essay analyzes the topic in the third book of the Torah, Leviticus. With the exception of Lev 2:13 and 24:8, 1 the term ‫‘ ברית‬covenant’ appears in Leviticus only in chap. 26. The eight instances form a significant concept in three stages that correspond to the three main parts of the chapter. 2 Leviticus 26 unfolds its message along the concepts of 1.  Lev 2:13 refers to the “salt of the covenant” which should be added to all offerings for Yahweh. Salt was used to preserve food, especially meat. Hence, salt stands metaphorically for endurance and stability. Thus, the “salt of the covenant” added to every offering symbolizes the durability and eternity of Yahweh’s covenant. Lev 24:8 also speaks about “a covenant forever.” The renewal of the 12 loaves of bread presented to Yahweh in the tent of meeting Sabbath after Sabbath by the priests symbolizes the eternal presence of Israel before Yahweh and thus the durability of the covenant. This refers to P’s covenantal theory of an “‘everlasting covenant,’ meaning that in spite of the failures of the people ultimately leading to the exile, it cannot be broken by Israel” (Nihan 2009: 101; see also Stackert 2011: 378). Beyond the context of sacrifices, salt appears as a symbol for the everlasting covenant in 2 Chr 13:5 referring to the promise of an eternal dynasty for David and his descendants. 2.  See, e.g., Groß 1997: 56; Joosten 1998: 151. Korpel offers a detailed analysis of the poetic structure of the whole chapter Leviticus 26 (1993: 123–46). Between my reading this paper at the 2012 SBL Annual Meeting at Chicago and its publication in the present volume, my commentary on Leviticus was published in the series Herders­theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament in 2014. Therefore, much of the material presented here in English can also be found in German in my comments on Leviticus 26; see Hieke 2014: 1047–1102.

75

76

Thomas Hieke

admonition­and redemption: the first two parts, 26:3–13 and 26:14–39, form the exhortation usually called “blessing and curses.” Similar conditions and sanctions appear at the end of the “Covenant Code” in Exod 23:25–33 and at the end of Deuteronomy in chap. 28 (see also Josh 24:20; Levine 1987: 9; Wenham 1979: 327). The message is clear: as long as Israel observes God’s commandments listed in the preceding chapters, the people will experience blessing in abundance regarding all important areas of human life. If, however, Israel does not obey Yahweh and spurns his statutes, God will bring terror on the people. But the history of Israel makes it impossible to keep this clear black-and-white pattern: Israel had experienced—and survived—the catastrophe of the Exile. 3 Hence, a third part, Lev 26:40–45, cushions this impact of history and adds without a special signal the concept of redemption. Within terror, exile, and disaster, during the justly executed punishment of the people, God intervenes in a salvific way by remembering the covenant; Yahweh does not forsake Israel entirely. In the end, God’s desire to lead his people to freedom will tip the balance toward the redemption of Israel from disaster. This construction of admonition and redemption makes it possible to keep an essential tension of biblical theology basically formulated in the formula of grace in Exod 34:6–7. Israel (and thus every human being) remains responsible and is called to live according to God’s commandments; failing to do so or willingly neglecting God’s torah will not be without consequences. But the punishment will not lead into extinction: God’s mercy and his remembrance of the covenant will make a new beginning possible.

The Conditional Covenant: Admonition (Leviticus 26:3–13, 14–39) The term covenant plays a major role in all three parts of Leviticus 26. Regarding the concept “admonition,” the covenant is conditional. In Lev 26:3–13, the part called “blessings” or better “promises” (Milgrom 2001: 2287; Steymans 1999), God enumerates the benefits that will be granted to Israel if the people observe God’s commandments. Israel will gain agricultural and military success, and God will uphold his covenant with Israel (26:9). Here, “covenant” is part of God’s “promises” (Stackert 2011: 381), and the term works as a kind of abbreviation or summary: “covenant” (or God’s upholding of the covenant) stands for all sorts of 3.  For a postexilic date of Leviticus 26 see, e.g., Bautch 2009: 57–58; Baumgart 1999: 11; Nihan 2007: 535–45. See also the discussion below about the “confession of sins.”

The Covenant in Leviticus 26

77

God’s positive attention, affection, grace and donation in favor of Israel. 4 The combination of the promise “I will make you fruitful and multiply you” 5 with the covenant resembles Gen 17:4–7; even without mentioning the name “Abraham,” the text continues the tradition of Yahweh’s promises to Abraham. Hence, the promises mentioned in Lev 26:3–13 pick up the thread of Israel’s great traditions of salvation: Israel’s identity is at stake. While Lev 26:9 uses the term covenant, Lev 26:12 quotes the twosided “covenant formula”: “And I will walk among you and will be your God, and you shall be my people” (NRSV). 6 A similar combination of “covenant” and “covenant formula” appears in Exod 6:4 and 6:7. In Exodus as well as here in Leviticus, a formula about God leading Israel from the house of slavery (Egypt) to freedom is added (Exod 6:7; Lev 26:13; Milgrom 2001: 2298). Hence, the positive ideal is clear: God leads Israel from slavery to freedom and grants his elected people a unique relationship resulting in all forms of blessing and positive experiences. 7 Significantly, both passages (Lev 26:3–13 and 14–39) consistently speak of a single covenant (‫)ברית‬: they do not distinguish between the (non-Priestly) Sinaitic covenant and the covenant with Abraham (P), although both are presupposed (Nihan 2009: 104). Contrary to the position of Nihan, Stackert (2011: 385) maintains that the uses of ‫ ברית‬in Leviticus 26 “are entirely comprehensible as part of an isolated P+H composition”: their meaning coincides with the use of ‫ ברית‬elsewhere in P and H and contrasts with the sense of ‫ ברית‬in the non-Priestly Torah passages. Stackert concludes: “Leviticus 26 thus supports the view that H is meant as a supplement to P alone and not to the non-Priestly Torah sources. To the extent that H knows these non-Priestly sources, Leviticus 26 also serves as a striking example of the considerable license that a revising author may assert to reorient radically and deviate from his literary forebears.” The differences, however, may not be overestimated, as Stackert concedes by noting the “strong structural similarity among the Torah sources regarding their basic views of Israel’s history and religion.” 4.  See, e.g., Num 6:26; Ps 25:16; 69:17; 86:16; 102:18; 119:132: God will lift up his countenance on the people. 5.  See, e.g., Gen 1:28; 9:1, 17; 17:5–7, 20; 26:4, 24; 28:3; 35:11; 48:4; Exod 1:7; Jer 3:16; 23:3; Ezek 36:11. 6. This formula appears in variations also in Exod 6:7; Jer 7:23; 31:33; Ezek 11:20; 36:28; 37:27; Zech 8:8. See, e.g., Joosten 1996: 101–7. 7.  For the references to the Exodus in Leviticus 17–25 (19:36–37; 22:32b–33; 23:42–43; 25:38, 42, 55), see Joosten 1998: 152–54.

78

Thomas Hieke

However, God’s blessings and benefits depend on Israel’s attitude toward the covenant and God’s torah: if Israel does not obey God and his commandments, thus breaking the covenant (26:15), God must punish the people severely, and a sword will execute vengeance for the covenant (26:25). This does not refer to the stereotype of a brutal deity executing blind (and often exaggerated) revenge—the term covenant rather indicates the authority of a royal suzerain to call a rebellious and disloyal vassal to order by using power and even violence. The text perpetuates the political and military metaphor “covenant” consequently: if Yahweh is the supreme Lord and owner of the land and if he gave it to Israel as a fief, Yahweh has the right to give orders and to demand loyalty. If the vassal becomes disloyal, the supreme Lord must maintain order (Barrick 2005: 119; 2010: 85). The ethical decision and responsibility of human beings for their deeds are taken seriously and to a high degree (see also Nihan 2009: 106). Hence, Lev 26:14–39, the longer part called “curses” or better “commination” (Milgrom 2001: 2287; Steymans 1999), lists several consequences for Israel’s disloyalty to the covenant and God’s commandments. God will take back all the promises mentioned in the first part, with one exception: the promise to uphold his covenant is not mentioned and therefore not withdrawn in the second part. Although the covenant is broken by one party (Lev 26:15), God does not dissolve the covenant (Joosten 1996: 116; Stackert 2011: 384). Thus, the idea of “covenant” serves as an anchor and a Rettungsschirm (emergency parachute) in order to bridge the doom of destruction and exile.

The Remembered Covenant: Redemption (Leviticus 26:40–45) Israel experienced the consequences in destruction and exile in the sixth century B.C.E. 8 But as the people survived the catastrophe, the two parts of admonition must be supplemented by a third part, redemption (Lev 26:40–45; Hieke 2014: 1089–98). 9 This part reckons with Israel’s perma8.  See, e.g., Halvorson-Taylor 2011: 31–41. She examines in her monograph several prophetical texts that “provide insight into the early, formative period in which the Babylonian Exile was transformed from a historical experience into a multivalent symbol of physical, mental, and spiritual distress” (p. 41). Leviticus 26 in its final form can be regarded as one outcome of this transformational process. Cholewiński (1976: 138) suggests that Lev 26:40–45 presupposes the ongoing Exile and hence has to be dated to the 6th century B.C.E. This proposal is not convincing; the text rather presupposes necessarily that the people survived the Exile and experienced the new beginning in the Persian period. 9.  Nihan convincingly demonstrates that the entire final epilogue in Lev 26:40– 45 can be read as a coherent section, which is an integral part of the original composition in chap. 26 (2009: 106–9).

The Covenant in Leviticus 26

79

nent failure to fulfill God’s ethical and cultic demands and demonstrates how God mercifully grants a new beginning after necessary punishment. Detached from the historical situation of Israel before and after the exile, one can ask more generally: as it seems to be natural for a human being to fail to fulfill God’s commandments and to despise again and again these instructions, although they will lead to life (see Lev 18:5), how can one stand before God? The idea that God grants a new beginning after the justified punishment is expressed by the metaphor that God “remembered his covenant.” It is the covenant with the patriarchs (Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, in this sequence in 26:42) and the (same) covenant with the ancients freed from the land of Egypt (26:45). This concept of redemption that results from the experiences of the Exile and the new beginning in the Persian period is integrated into the revelation at Mount Sinai in order to anchor the paradigm of failure, punishment, forgiveness, and new beginning at the roots of Israel’s religion. While the concept of admonition by promises and commination is borrowed from the treaties in the ancient Near Eastern literature, 10 the concept of redemption is unique in Israel’s environment (Milgrom 2001: 2329). The basic structure of Lev 26:40–45 consists of a conditional sentence, that is, a protasis (26:40–41) and an apodosis (26:42–45). The condition or protasis starts in v. 40 with the confession of iniquity and treachery: “But if they confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their ancestors, 11 in that they committed treachery against me and, moreover, that they continued hostile to me”—this confession triggers an explanatory parenthesis (v. 41ab) again stressing that God’s hostile reaction was a necessary consequence of the people’s sins (Milgrom 2001: 2332; Gerstenberger 1993: 393): “So that I, in turn, continued hostile to them and brought them into the land of their enemies.” After that explanation, the conditional protasis is resumed by the people’s self-humiliation and contrition: “If 10.  See, e.g., the Codex Hammurapi (18th century B.C.E; TUAT 1:77; Richardson 2000), the Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon (TUAT 1:172; Wiseman 1958), the bilingual inscription on the statue from Tell Fekheriye (9th century B.C.E; TUAT 1:634–37; Lipiński 1994: 19–81). For more details on ancient Near Eastern parallels, see Podella 1993: 429–46; Korpel 1993: 146–50. “The most important difference is related to the speaker. In ancient Near Eastern laws and treaties . . . the gods are mentioned in the third person. Either the king himself calls the divine blessings and curses upon his addressees, or they are called on behalf of the king by an unnamed speaker. In Deuteronomy 28 the king is simply replaced by Moses, but the pattern remains the same. In Leviticus 26, however, Yahweh himself is speaking” (Müller 2010: 208; see also Wenham 1979: 327). 11.  According to Müller, the phrase “the iniquity of their ancestors” in Lev 26:39b, 40a is a secondary addition (2010: 222).

80

Thomas Hieke

then their uncircumcised heart is humbled and they make amends for their iniquity” (v. 41cd). The confession of sins is a new aspect in the long history of Israel’s iniquity and disobedience, and it corresponds to the ritual of the “Day of Atonement” in Lev 16:21: Contrition and the confession of sins are the way of the Diaspora, far from the ritual at the temple of Jerusalem, to achieve atonement (see 1 Kgs 8:46–51 par. 2 Chr 6:36–39; Baumgart 1999: 17–19). Boda convincingly demonstrates that the idea of confession of sins created a new, postexilic genre: penitential prayers such as Ezra 9; Nehemiah 1, 9; Daniel 9; Psalm 106 (2001: 195–97; see also Boda 1999: 48, 51). Boda points out that Jer 14:19–21 is drawing on Leviticus 26 (2001: 196). This might be possible, but it does not necessarily imply that Leviticus 26 must have originated in the late Preexilic Period. Leviticus 26 probably was composed together with the chapters usually called the “Holiness Code” (H). According to Nihan, H is a late composition (post P) by a pentateuchal redactor dating to the second half of the fifth century B.C.E. (2004: 122). Hence, either Lev 26:42 got the idea about the remembrance of the covenant from Jer 14:21 or the communal lament in the book of Jeremiah is a later addition modeled on the concept of confession of sin in Leviticus 26. However, the date of H is a highly disputed matter, and the scholarly discussion cannot even be summarized here. The recent tendency seems to go toward a postexilic date, and in his various publications Nihan presents convincing arguments for his supposed scenario of the origin of the book of Leviticus. The optimism of the last century regarding the ability to reconstruct the process of the origin of H in every detail and down to every single half verse (as an example see Cholewiński 1976: 131–41) is nowadays rejected for methodological reasons. One should note, however, that the confession of the sins and the people’s contrition are not an achievement or great merits that create a claim for God’s grace. Contrition and repentance are the precondition for God’s mercy (Bautch 2009: 60). In his conclusion, R. J. Bautch states: “Confession of sin is integral to all of the covenantal texts examined here; it appears in Isa 64:4b–6; Neh 9:33–35; and Lev 26:40, with echoes in Bar 2:30–33” (Bautch 2009: 62; see also Kessler 2010: 327; Baumgart 1999: 17–22). Barrick states: The Hebrew word for ‘repentance’ (‫ )ׁשוב‬does not occur in Leviticus 26. However, the concept of repentance occurs in a threefold turning of exiled Israelites to Yahweh: (1) They must confess their guilt and the guilt of their forefathers (v. 40), recognizing their personal and corporate culpability. (2) They must humble their ‘uncircumcised heart’ (v. 41),

The Covenant in Leviticus 26

81

bringing it into subjection to the precepts of Yahweh. . . . (3) They must make restitution for their guilt (v. 41), accepting the . . . consequences of sin. (2010: 98–99)

God respects humankind’s free will and autonomous decision for good or evil; nobody is saved against his will. Repentance expresses the free decision to accept God’s grace. However, as Nihan demonstrates (2009: 110), the people’s conversion is predicted to Moses by Yahweh himself: it is not a mere possibility but rather an event that will necessarily happen at some point in the future. In other words, the text portrays God as optimistic enough to presume that finally the people will voluntarily (!) repent and return to God’s commandments. The apodosis (Lev 26:42–45) can then formulate God’s merciful love for his people with the metaphor of the remembered covenant (Bautch 2003: 149). The text is artfully structured as a palindromic inclusio (Hieke 2014: 1091): A 42 Then will I remember my covenant with Jacob; I will remember also my covenant with Isaac and also my covenant with Abraham, and I will remember the land. B 43 For the land shall be deserted by them, and enjoy its sabbath years by lying desolate without them, while they shall make amends for their iniquity, C because they dared to spurn my ordinances, and they abhorred my statutes. D 44 Yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies, Cʹ I will not spurn them, or abhor them so as to destroy them utterly Bʹ and break my covenant with them; for I am the Lord their God; Aʹ 45 but I will remember in their favor the covenant with their ancestors whom I brought out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the nations, to be their God: I am the Lord.

The center of the apodosis (D) consists of the far-reaching experience of the Exile, hence, the negative consequences of Israel’s spurning of God’s ordinances (C) came true (see the commination in Lev 26:14–39). However, God does not react in a symmetric way (Gerstenberger 1993: 395): God does not spurn the people so as to destroy them (C′; Baumgart 1999: 13–14). 12 Although the punishment of the Exile was necessary and 12.  The verb “to spurn” (‫ )מאס‬might point to earlier texts such as Lam 5:22 or Jer 7:29 (see also Jer 6:30; Amos 5:21), which declare that Yahweh had in fact spurned or rejected his people (or threatened to do so). By using the same verb here, H responds

82

Thomas Hieke

justified­(B), this does not mean that God breaks the covenant with Israel (B′; Stackert 2011: 380). The supreme principle remains the unbroken covenant: God’s covenant with the patriarchs (Jacob, Isaac, Abraham) 13 concerning the land (A) and the same covenant with the ancestors freed from the land of Egypt (A′; Milgrom 2004: 92–95). The remembrance of the covenant frames the whole apodosis. The fact that God “remembers” his covenant with the patriarchs means that the ‫ ברית‬was not abolished or broken in spite of the crimes and the sins of the people that led to the exile (Nihan 2009: 110). “Remembering” is not only an intellectual process but always implies real action (Baumgart 1999: 15; Álvarez Valdés 2003: 167; Gerstenberger 1993: 394). The phrase appears with Noah in Gen 9:15–16 and in Israel’s lament about their slavery in Egypt (Exod 2:24; 6:5). The motif also appears in prophetic literature (Jer 14:21; Ezek 16:60) and in the Psalms (Ps 105:8; 106:45; 111:5). The remembrance of the land, however, is unique within the Bible (Levine 1989: 191; Joosten 1998: 159). It is noteworthy that no separate covenants have been individually formed with Noah, Abraham, etc.; there is only one covenant between God and human beings (Nihan 2009: 112; similarly, Stackert 2011: 382). The names stand for individual accentuations and renewals of the same covenant: “It turns out in the long run that there is little difference between the covenants of Sinai and Abraham in regard to their fulfillment. The difference lies in their content, but their realization is dependent on Israel’s behavior” (Milgrom 2001: 2340–2341; 2004: 95; Hieke 2014: 1097). The covenant with the patriarchs accentuates God’s promises of land and progeny (Bautch 2009: 43); the covenant at Mount Sinai with the “ancestors” (v. 45) 14 accentuates Israel’s promise to keep God’s comto these severe admonitions in prophetic literature with a message of comfort and hope (G. N. Knoppers, personal communication). 13.  The sequence Jacob, Isaac, Abraham probably insinuates an ascending line or climax. It goes back into “history” to the very beginning of God’s promises of land and progeny,that is, back to Israel’s roots (see, e.g., Grünwaldt 1999: 372). 14. See Joosten 1998: 156–59; Nihan 2009: 111; Rothenbusch 2011: 5. Groß assumes that “ancestors” in v. 45 refers to the covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He translates: “But I will remember in their favor (whom I brought out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the nations to be their God) the covenant with (their) ancestors.” However, because the remembrance of the covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob forms the basis for the renewal of the Sinai covenant, Groß notes the strange assumption (“sehr seltsam”) that two valid concepts of covenant exist next to each other. Because there are no differences in content, Groß concludes that the end of Leviticus 26 obviously points to a concept of covenant that no longer distinguishes between the covenant of the fathers and the covenant at Mount Sinai (1997: 60–61).

The Covenant in Leviticus 26

83

mandments. They complement one another, 15 and both concepts of covenant remain valid—even if Israel fails to meet God’s claim for a holy people, even if Israel does not obey the social and cultic commandments intended for life (Lev 18:5). The possibility of failure and punishment, even the reality of the Exile—and the concept of redemption and new beginning—are already anchored in the Torah itself, in the fictive narrative of Israel at Mount Sinai. This means that failure and necessary punishment do not question the normative claim of God’s torah. Although God foresees Israel’s failure, God withdraws neither his commandments nor his covenant. In addition, the exile and the national destruction of Israel are not due to Yahweh’s weakness but are an expression of God’s overarching plan of history. Projecting the various and dramatic experiences of history back to the ideal time of Israel’s foundation at Mount Sinai creates a paradigm that can be applied not only to Judah’s national catastrophe of the sixth century B.C.E but also to later situations and even—in a spiritual transformation—to the existence of the individual before God. The overall message of the text is God’s readiness to forgive and to grant a new beginning, but the concept of covenant also implies that God takes the responsibility and free will of human beings seriously and arranges even dramatic consequences. God’s punishment, however, will not result in utter destruction and a breaking of the covenant: “The exile appears as an opportunity for Israel’s repentance as well as for the Sabbath rest of the land, and it has to be emphasized that, in spite of the exile, Yahweh will never let Israel perish” (Müller 2010: 228; emphasis original; see also Grünwaldt 1999: 373–74; Stackert 2011: 380). The word of the prophet Hosea is still true: “For I am the Lord, their God (see Lev 26:44), for I am God, no mortal” (Hos 11:9).

Inner-Biblical Relationships The concepts of admonition and redemption as well as the conditional and remembered covenant are not unique within the Bible. 16 In terms of its relationship to the curses or commination of Deuteronomy 28–29, Deut 30:1–10 has the same function as Lev 26:40–45 toward Lev 26:14– 39 (Cholewiński 1976: 313; Wenham 1979: 332; Nihan 2009: 110): 15.  Álvarez Valdés speaks about “dos tipos de alianzas” which the author of Leviticus 26 led to a synthesis (“genial síntesis teológica”; 2003: 170, 180–81). 16.  For a detailed presentation and discussion of the biblical “tradition” taken over in Leviticus 26, see Grünwaldt 1999: 348–65.

Thomas Hieke

84

Table 1. Related Verses in Leviticus 26 and Ezekiel Ezek 34 25 26–27 28

Lev 26 6, 9 4, 5, 13 5; 6

Ezek 37 26 27 28

Lev 26 6, 9 11, 12 13

a salvation through punishment is possible; the people will survive the threatened distress (which became reality with the exile). Deut 30:2–3 announces that God will have compassion on the people, if they repent and return to God. God’s mercy does not nullify the injustice and evil deeds of the people, but their repentance enables God to grant a new beginning. This new beginning is at the same time a new call to obey the Lord and observe all the commandments in order to gain the promised blessing (Deut 30:8–10). Deut 30:6 adds a new thought: “Moreover, the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, in order that you may live.” The Bible is aware that the free will of a human being needs God’s help in order to be able to decide freely in favor of God’s torah. God’s support of the human heart to find autonomously the way to life through the love of God is expressed in the metaphor of the “circumcision of the heart.” As circumcision is the sign of the covenant, the concept of “covenant” is present here, although the term does not appear. The “uncircumcised heart” of Lev 26:41c will be “circumcised” by God: God will trim and organize the root of the human beings’ thinking and planning and thus help them to follow the Lord with all their heart and all their soul. This is not a kind of “brainwashing” that makes people do what they do not want to but a parental care for the autonomous human being to come to the appropriate decision and to find the way to true life. Almost the same metaphor appears in Jer 31:33: God will write his torah on the hearts of the people, and this will enable the renewal of the covenant. Ezek 36:26 speaks about heart transplantation: God will remove the heart of stone and replace it by a heart of flesh—then the people will be able to follow God’s statutes and ordinances. “Then you shall live in the land that I gave to your ancestors; and you shall be my people, and I will be your God” (Ezek 36:28). The covenant formula again indicates the renewal of the covenant. Leviticus 26 and Ezekiel (especially Ezek 34:25–28; 37:26–28) have many terms and phrases in common. Table 1 indicates the related verses

The Covenant in Leviticus 26

85

(Hieke 2014: 1065–66). Lyons presents even more details (2010: 7–9, 16–19, 22–26). The phrase “covenant of peace” is especially noteworthy; it appears only in Ezek 34:25; 37:26; Num 25:12; Isa 54:10 (Batto 1987: 202–3). Lev 26:6 and 26:9 combine peace and covenant within a few verses. The literary relationship between Leviticus 26 and Ezekiel is disputed. While Milgrom and others opt for Ezekiel as a recipient of Leviticus 26 (Milgrom 2001: 2348–63; 1997; Lyons 2010: 4–6), the tendency goes in the other direction (Greenberg 2005: 409; 476; Nihan 2004: 108–10; 2007: 543; Otto 1999: 180–82; Levine 1987: 30; Müller 2010: 209; Grünwaldt 1999: 350–51). Perhaps there was a common repertoire of Priestly phrases regarding the renewal of the covenant and the people’s attitude toward God’s commandments, and these phrases and concepts influenced the final formulations of the books of Leviticus and Ezekiel. The prophetic literature (Ezekiel, Jeremiah) underscores especially God’s merciful intervention for the restoration of Israel, while the Torah (Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 30) keeps stressing the call for the people’s obedience to the torah. This debate “reflects the two major theological options of the political and religious elites of the Persian period: eschatological prophecy vs. Torah-based observance” (Nihan 2007: 545).

Theological and Anthropological Conclusions The observations above suggest the following theological and anthropological conclusions. The concept of covenant in Leviticus 26 results in one comprehensive covenant between God and Israel thus leading the Priestly and the non-Priestly traditions in the Pentateuch to a synthesis. This synthesis integrates the Sinaitic ‫ ברית‬into P’s concept of an “everlasting” covenant with Abraham and his descendants (Nihan 2009: 115). Thus, Leviticus 26 presents God as a reliable covenant partner (Gerstenberger 1993: 395) and as a merciful and forgiving deity. J. Joosten provides a fine summary of the whole chapter: There is no vacillation in Lev 26, but one coherent conception. The dialectic of the chapter is internal, with the tensions flowing from the particular conception underlying the corpus: a) the covenant between Yhwh and Israel is a covenant of pure grace: The Israelites were slaves in Egypt and they have been made slaves—or rather, servants—of the living God; b) but high privilege comes with high obligation: the servants of Yhwh are to orient their whole lives toward the acquisition of holiness, through observance of the commandments which he has given them to that precise purpose; c) however, even although Israel should not

86

Thomas Hieke honour their obligation, thus inviting the complete disintegration of the arrangement instituted at the Exodus: destruction of the sanctuary and exile from the land—even then, the bond between Yhwh and Israel will perdure: by right they are his slaves; only by exterminating them could Yhwh do away with the covenant, and this he will not, out of faithfulness to the patriarchs, and for fear of the enemy’s scorn. He will remember the covenant of the Exodus so as to be their God. (1998: 164).

As Israel is freed from the land of Egypt in the sight of all nations (26:45), Israel represents an anthropological paradigm: all human beings are summoned to a life according to God’s ethical demands in order to gain a life of prosperity and peace. As human beings experience their failure in following God’s commandments and suffer the severe consequences, God will answer confession and repentance by granting a new beginning (“remembering the covenant”). Thus, God’s mercy does not suspend the ethical responsibility of the human beings; their actions do not become irrelevant. However, punishment will not be God’s last word; it is the covenant that lets God’s love prevail against his vengeance.

Bibliography Álvarez Valdés, A. 2003 Levítico 26: Una síntesis de alianzas como clave de lectura. Estudios Biblicos 61: 155–81. Barrick, W. D. 2005 The Eschatological Significance of Leviticus 26. The Master’s Seminary Journal 16: 95–126. 2010 Inter-covenantal Truth and Relevance: Leviticus 26 and the Biblical Covenants. The Master’s Seminary Journal 21: 81–102. Batto, B. 1987 The Covenant of Peace: A Neglected Ancient Near Eastern Motif. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 49: 187–211. Baumgart, N. C. 1999 Überkommene Traditionen neu aufgearbeitet und angeeignet: Lev 26, 3–45. Das Heiligkeitsgesetz in Exil und Diaspora. Biblische Zeitschrift 43: 1–25. Bautch, R. J. 2003 Developments in Genre between Post-Exilic Penitential Prayers and the Psalms of Communal Lament. Society of Biblical Literature Academia Biblica 7. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. 2009 An Appraisal of Abraham’s Role in Postexilic Covenants. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 71: 42–63. Boda, M. J. 1999 Praying the Tradition: The Origin and Use of Tradition in Nehemiah 9. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 277. Berlin: de Gruyter.

The Covenant in Leviticus 26

87

2001 From Complaint to Contrition: Peering through the Liturgical Window of Jer 14,1–15,4. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 113: 186–97. Cholewiński, A. 1976 Heiligkeitsgesetz und Deuteronomium: Eine vergleichende Studie. Analecta biblica 66. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Gerstenberger, E. S. 1993 Das 3. Buch Mose. Leviticus. Das Alte Testament Deutsch 6. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Greenberg, M. 2005 Ezechiel 21–37. Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament. Freiburg: Herder. Groß, W. 1997 “Rezeption” in Ex 31,12–17 und Lev 26,39–45. Sprachliche Formen und theologisch-kompositionelle Leistung. Pp. 45–64 in Rezeption und Auslegung im Alten Testament und seinem Umfeld, ed. R. G. Kratz and T. Krüger. Orbis biblicus et orientalis 153. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Grünwaldt, K. 1999 Das Heiligkeitsgesetz Leviticus 17–20: Ursprüngliche Gestalt, Tradition und Theologie. Berlin: de Gruyter. Halvorson-Taylor, M. A. 2011 Enduring Exile: The Metaphorization of Exile in the Hebrew Bible. Vetus Testamentum Supplement 141. Leiden: Brill. Hieke, T. 2014 Levitikus 16–27. Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament. Freiburg: Herder. Joosten, J. 1996 People and Land in the Holiness Code: An Exegetical Study of the Ideational Framework of the Law in Leviticus 17–26. Vetus Testamentum Supplement 67. Leiden: Brill. 1998 Covenant Theology in the Holiness Code. Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 4: 145–64. Kessler, J. 2010 Images of Exile: Representations of the “Exile” and “Empty Land” in the Sixth to Fourth Century B.C.E. Yehudite Literature. Pp. 309–51 in The Concept of Exile in Ancient Israel and its Historical Contexts, ed. E. Ben Zvi and C. Levin. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 404. Berlin: de Gruyter. Korpel, M. C. A. 1993 The Epilogue to the Holiness Code. Pp. 123–150 in Verse in Ancient Near Eastern Prose, ed. J. C. Moor et al. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 42. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Levine, B. A. 1987 The Epilogue to the Holiness Code: A Priestly Statement on the Destiny of Israel. Pp. 9–34 in Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel, ed. J. Neusner, B. A. Levine, and E. S. Frerichs. Philadelphia: Fortress.

88

Thomas Hieke

1989 Leviticus. Jewish Publication Society Torah Commentary Series. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. Lipiński, E. 1994 Studies in Aramaic Inscriptions and Onomastics. Orientalia lovaniensia analecta 57. Leuven: Peeters. Lyons, M. A. 2010 Transformation of Law. Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness Code (Leviticus 17–26). Pp. 1–32 in Transforming Visions: Transformations of Text, Tradition, and Theology in Ezekiel, ed. W. A. Tooman and M. A. Lyons. Princeton Theological Monograph Series 127. Eugene, OR: Pickwick. Milgrom, Jacob 1997 Leviticus 26 and Ezekiel. Pp. 57–62 in The Quest for Context and Meaning. Studies in Biblical Intertextuality in Honor of James A. Sanders, ed. C. A. Evans and S. Talmon. Biblical Interpretation Series 28. Leiden: Brill. 2001 Leviticus 23–27. Anchor Bible 3B. New York: Doubleday. 2004 Covenants: The Sinaitic and Patriarchal Covenants in the Holiness Code (Leviticus 17–27). Pp. 91–101 in Sefer Moshe. The Moshe Weinfeld Jubilee Volume, ed. C. Cohen, A. Hurvitz, and S. M. Paul. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Müller, R. 2010 A Prophetic View of the Exile in the Holiness Code: Literary Growth and Tradition History in Leviticus 26. Pp. 207–28 in The Concept of Exile in Ancient Israel and its Historical Contexts, ed. E. Ben Zvi and C. Levin. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 404. Berlin: de Gruyter. Nihan, C. 2004 The Holiness Code between D and P: Some Comments on the Function and Significance of Leviticus 17–26 in the Composition of the Torah. Pp. 81–122 in Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk, ed. E. Otto and R. Achenbach. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 206. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 2007 From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch: A Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2/25. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 2009 The Priestly Covenant, Its Reinterpretations, and the Composition of “P.” Pp. 87–134 in The Strata of the Priestly Writings. Contemporary Debate and Future Directions, ed. S. Shectman and J. S. Baden. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 95. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag. Otto, E. 1999 Innerbiblische Exegese im Heiligkeitsgesetz Levitikus 17–26. Pp. 125– 96 in Levitikus als Buch, ed. H.-J. Fabry and H.-W. Jüngling. Bonner biblische Beiträge 119. Berlin: Philo. Richardson, M. E. J. 2000 Hammurabi’s Laws: Text, Translation and Glossary. Biblical Seminar 73. Sheffield: JSOT Press.

The Covenant in Leviticus 26

89

Rothenbusch, R. 2011 Zur Ausgestaltung der Sinaiperikope durch die Priesterliche Gebotsmitteilung. Pp. 3–28 in „Ich werde meinen Bund mit euch niemals brechen!“ (Ri 2,1). Festschrift für Walter Groß zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. E. Gaß and H.-J. Stipp. Herders Biblische Studien 62. Freiburg: Herder. Stackert, Jeffrey 2011 Distinguishing Innerbiblical Exegesis from Pentateuchal Redaction: Leviticus 26 as a Test Case. Pp. 369–86 in The Pentateuch. International Perspectives on Current Research, ed. T. B. Dozeman, K. Schmid, and B. J. Schwartz. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 78. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Steymans, H. U. 1999 Verheißung und Drohung: Lev 26. Pp. 263–307 in Levitikus als Buch, ed. H.-J. Fabry and H.-W. Jüngling. Bonner biblische Beiträge 119. Berlin: Philo. Podella, T. 1993 Notzeit-Mythologem und Nichtigkeitsfluch. Pp. 427–54 in Religionsgeschichtliche Beziehungen zwischen Kleinasien, Nordsyrien und dem Alten Testament, ed. B. Janowski, K. Koch, and G. Wilhelm. Orbis biblicus et orientalis 129. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag. Wenham, Gordon J. 1979 The Book of Leviticus. New International Commentary on the Old Testament 3. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Wiseman, D. J. 1958 The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon. London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq.

“The Unwritten Text of the Covenant” Torah in the Mouth of the Prophets Reinhard Achenbach Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster

Three Versions of Mediation at the Mountain of God / Horeb In the Pentateuch, we have three or even four versions of the account of God’s encounter with the Israelites at the Mountain of God. 1 According to the oldest version in Exodus 20, the theophany was so frightening for the people that they fled from the mountain (Exod 20:18, 21a). 2 The Deuteronomist in Deuteronomy 5 connects this concept with the concept of Yhwh’s voice that was heard from the Mountain Horeb, when he pronounced the (Deuteronomistic) Decalogue (Deut 5:22–25), and launches Moses as the mediator of the divine revelation of the laws of Deuteronomy (Deut 5:28, 31–32). 3 A post-Deuteronomistic redactor who accepted the 1.  See table 1. 2. The traditional documentary hypotheses from Wellhausen to Zenger found parts of E (the Elohist) in the text, according to the assumption that the Decalogue was an Elohistic composition, but after M. Noth’s commentary many scholars assumed that parts of the narrative belonged to a redactional layer that included the Covenant Code (B = Bundesbuch) into the account. For an overview, see E. Zenger 1971: 212–13. If the core of the narrative was an account on a theophany, the motif of the people’s fright may have been an original part of it. For further discussion of the issue, see T. B. Dozeman 2009: 470–72. Dozeman’s conclusion is that the pre-P account of Exodus 19–24 did not include a version of the Decalogue (2009: 472). 3.  The Decalogue was composed by authors who followed the teachings of the Deuteronomists. The problem underlying the exegetical discussion is that the older version referred to in the Deuteronomistic account of Deuteronomy 5 was used by the later redactor of Exodus for a combination of the Sabbath-Commandment with the perspectives of P. L. Perlitt (1969: 78–99) has shown the Deuteronomistic character of the Decalogue already in the basic version of Exodus 20. F. L. Hossfeld (1982) has confirmed the arguments for a Deuteronomistic origin of the composition. He was right when he stated that the version in Deuteronomy 5 was older than the version in Exodus 20, because Exodus 20 is already reworked by an author who knew P. But there are still strong arguments that the Deuteronomists in Deuteronomy 5 refered to an older version (as they themselves let Moses pretend to do) and that this older version

93

94

Reinhard Achenbach

Covenant Code as a canonical text in line with Deuteronomy reciprocally added this concept in Exod 20:19–20, 21b in order to introduce the Covenant Code together with the Decalogue. 4 The same narrative is used again to launch a third corpus of revelation, the Corpus propheticum, especially with the book of Jeremiah (Achenbach 2011). Deut 18:16 states that at the day of the assembly at Horeb the people had asked for a mediator in general (‫)לא אסף לשמע את־קול יהוה אלהי‬. This impulse had given reason to Yhwh to promise to raise a prophet “from the midst of their brothers.” God did not promise to raise a king “from the midst of the brothers” (cf. Deut 17:15)! The “law on the prophets” is connected to the “law of the kings” in that respect. It is obvious that the author of the so-called “King’s law” in Deut 17:14–20 does not consider it necessary that Israel has a monarchic constitution, but he renders the idea that in any case Israel would have needed a Mosaic institution of mediatorship in order to receive the divine word. 5 Thus, the author of the “law on the prophets” seems to know the view of 2 Kgs 17:13–14: the prophets as servants of Yhwh (2 Kgs 17:23) were sent by God throughout the history of Israel and Judah to warn the people to turn from their ways and to observe the commandments, based on the revelation given to the forefathers. Deuteronomy 18 expands this has been used also by the redactor of Exodus 20 and thus is part of Exodus 20. See C. Levin 1985; R. Achenbach 1991; 2005: 132–34. 4.  It is widely acknowledged that the literary core and composition of the Book of the Covenant is older than Deuteronomy, but those who introduced this composition into the Sinai pericope in Exodus 20–23 already referred to the Deuteronomistic frame of Deuteronomy (compare Exod 23:20–33 with Deuteronomy 7), the Deuteronomistic Decalogue (compare Exod 20:23 with Deut 5:7–9), and the Deuteronomistic version of Kings (compare Exod 20:23 with Exod 32:1–6, and especially Exod 32:4b with 1 Kgs 12:28). Some explanation may be helpful. Exod 20:23 reflects already the combination of the first commandment not to have other gods with the prohibition of making idols in the Decalogue. Granted that the Deuteronomistic version of the Decalogue seems to be the most ancient complete version we have (Hossfeld 1982), I think that Exod 20:23 develops the combination into a polemical new formulation (“You shall not make gods from silver or gold!”). This means, according to my view, that Exod 20:23 was introduced into the Covenant Code by the redactor who combined it with the Decalogue in Exodus 20. The same redaction seems to draw the parallel in Exod 32:4 with 1 Kgs 12:28 and thus, by rewriting, reprojects the story of the golden calf onto the mountain of God and covenant story of Exodus 20–24, 32–34*. The writer of Exod 20:23 was aware of this combination, and the formulation of Exod 20:23 is a link among Exodus 20, Exodus 32, and the Deuteronomistic text of 1 Kgs 12:28. The redactional rewriting of the Covenant Code within the frame of this story is the reason for the composition of the beginning of the Covenant Code in Exod 20:22–23. 5.  For the late-Deuteronomistic or even post-Deuteronomistic features of Deut 17:14–20, see R. Achenbach 2009: 216–33.

The Unwritten Text of the Covenant

95

Table 1. God’s Encounter with the Israelites at the Mountain of God Deuteronomy 18:16–19

Deuteronomy 5

Exodus 20

16 This is just what you asked of Yhwh your God at Horeb, on the day of the assembly (‫)הקהל‬, saying: “Let me not hear the voice (‫ )הקול‬of Yhwh my God any longer or see his wondrous fire any more, lest I die!” 17 And Yhwh said to me: “They did well who spoke thus. 18 I will raise up a prophet for them from the midst of their brothers, like yourself: I will put my words into his mouth, and he will speak to them all that I command him. 19 And if anybody fails to heed the words he speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account.”

2 Yhwh our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. 22 Yhwh spoke those words to your whole assembly (‫)הקהל‬. . . 23 And when you heard the voice (‫ )הקול‬out of the darkness, and the mountain was ablaze with fire, you came close to me, all your tribal heads and elders, 24 and you said: “Yhwh our God has shown us his glorious presence (‫)כבד‬ . . . 22 . . . if we hear the voice of Yhwh our God any longer, we shall die. 27 You go closer and hear all that Yhwh our God says, and then you tell us everything that Yhwh our God tells you, and we will willingly do it.” 28 And Yhwh heard the voice of your words, you spoke to me, and Yhwh said to me: “. . . they all did well who spoke thus. . . . 31 You stay here with me, and I will give you the whole instruction . . .” 32 Be careful to do as Yhwh our God has commanded you!

18 And all the people saw the thunder (‫ )הקולת‬and the lightning and the blare of the shofar and the mountain smoking; and when the people saw it, they fell back and stood at a distance. 19 And they said to Moses: “You speak to us, and we will obey, but let not Elohim speak to us, lest we die!” 20 And Moses answered the people: “Be not afraid! For the God has come only in order to test you, and in order that the fear of Him may be with you, so that you do not go astray.” 21 So the people remained at a distance, while Moses approached the darkness, where the God was.

view, saying that the sending of the prophets was part and parcel of the original promises delivered from Mount Horeb so that they would continue the task of Mosaic mediatorship. Thus, the measure of authorized and unauthorized prophecy spoken in the name of Yhwh (‫ידבר הנביא בׁשם‬ ‫ )יהוה‬must stand in a continuous tradition with the words of Moses. This theory gives room to the scribes of the Second Temple period, who passed down the scrolls with the prophetic oracles contained within them, to trace this promise in their scrolls and to underline the message of conversion­

96

Reinhard Achenbach

and renewal in the prophetic books so that later readers or listeners, when the scrolls were read out for them, could remember the fate of Israel and Israel’s disobedience on the one hand and decide to dedicate their own lives fully to the torah of Yhwh on the other. It is now worthwhile to note that the formula of “speaking in the name of Yhwh” (‫)דבר בׁשם יהוה‬ among the prophets appears only in Jer 26:16; 44:16; 1 Chr 21:19; 2 Chr 18:15; 33:18, beside the formula “to prophesy in the name of Yhwh” (‫נבא‬ ‫ ;בׁשם יהוה‬Jer 26:9, 20)! 6 Deut 18:15–18 thus opens the gate for covenantal texts that were not yet written but could be written by the scribes of prophetic scrolls in the future. Deut 18:15–18 is the gate to the new world of the unwritten message of the covenant based on oral torah teaching. The message of this covenant is, of course, in line with the covenantal message of the Deuteronomistic Deuteronomy, the message of Moses. The true prophet will call to turn to the word of this covenant, and his message for the future will be: if you listen to the voice of Yhwh and observe his commands, Yhwh will fulfill all his promises he has given to the fathers. But if you do not obey this message, then Yhwh will punish you, and you are going to be removed from his presence, respectively. Yhwh will call everybody to account who does not obey the words of his prophet (Deut 18:19: ‫אנכי אדרׁש‬ ‫)מעמו‬. The false prophet will say the opposite. And, of course, Yhwh will ensure that the message of the true prophets is fulfilled (Deut 18:20–21).

The Prophet Jeremiah as Mediator of the Word of Yhwh The Deuteronomistic Historians who wrote the books of Samuel and Kings did not even mention prophets such as Hosea, Amos, Micah, or Jeremiah! There was a gap in their concept, and this gap was filled in several steps. The first step was to collect the prophetic scrolls and to introduce texts that interpreted the prophetic messages in line with the teachings of the Deuteronomists. The second step was to interpret the role of the prophets with respect to the fall of the Northern Kingdom in 2 Kgs 17:13–15, 22–23*: Yhwh warned Israel and Judah 7 through all his prophets 8 and seers: 6.  With respect to Jer 26:16 and 44:16, see also Zech 13:3 (“telling lies”). 7.  A sermon directed by the prophets to “Judah and Israel” is mentioned in Hos 2:2; Jer 3:18, 33:7, 42:15; Mic 5:1; Zech 2:2, 8:13, 11:14; Mal 2:11. With the exception of Jer 3:18, these passages contain oracles of salvation. 8.  All his prophets: 1 Kgs 22:22–23; 2 Kgs 17:13 (2 Chr 18:21); of Baal: 2 Kgs 10:19; all his servants, the prophets: 2 Kgs 17:23; Jer 7:25, 25:4, 35:15, 44:4. There is a very strong link between 2 Kgs 17:13–23 and Jeremiah.

The Unwritten Text of the Covenant

97

“Turn 9 from your evil ways and observe my commands and decrees, in accordance with the entire Torah that I commanded your fathers to obey and that I delivered to you through my servants, the prophets.” But they did not listen and were as stiff-necked as their fathers, who did not believe in Yhwh, their God. They rejected his decrees and the covenant he had made with their fathers, and the warnings he had given them. . . . and the Israelites persisted in all the sins that Jeroboam had committed, they did not depart from them. In the end, Yhwh removed Israel from His presence, as He had warned them through all His servants the prophets. So the Israelites were deported from their land to Assyria, as is still the case.

The third step was the reworking of some of the prophetic scrolls introducing a “theology of return“ (Umkehrtheologie) in accordance with the concept of the prophet as a servant of God who calls the people to turn from their evil ways (e.g., Hos 2:9; 3:5; 5:15; 6:1), stating that the people’s unwillingness and inability to convert (Hos 5:4, 15; 7:16; 8, 13) and their resulting need to bear the consequences and suffer the punishment (Hos 8:13; 9:3; 11:5) leaves the conversion and the return to the holy land to the coming generations (Hos 12:3, 7, 10, 15; 14:2, 3, 5, 8). Similar observations can be made in Amos (4:9–11). The impossibility of conversion is stressed in Isa 6:10; thus, Proto-Isaiah seems to reflect an ending “point of no return.” But in Jeremiah the theme is reflected intensely (Jer 2:24, 35; 3:1, 7, 10, 12, 14, 19, 22; 4:1, 8, 28; 5:3, 8:4–6, 11:10, 12:15,15:7, 19; 16:15, 18:8.11, 23:22, 25:5, 26:3, 29:14, 35:15, 36:3, 44:5, 14; and so on). In Jeremiah, the historical view of 2 Kgs 17:13 is attested several times. Jer 18:11 applies the words of the conversion sermon that was directed to Israel first and secondarily to Judah in one of Jeremiah’s sermons to the people of Judah and Jerusalem. The account in Jer 35:15 repeats the words of 2 Kgs 17:13 with respect to the same group (Jer 35:12; for parallels, see table 2). In addition, we can observe in Jeremiah that the concept of Deut 18:15–22 is applied systematically. Most scholars have seen connections between Deuteronomistic Deuteronomy and Jeremiah especially in Jeremiah 1; 7; 11; 17; 26; 31; and 34. 10 After the Deuteronomists in Deut 9.  The prophetic call to return can be found in Isa 31:6, but mostly and most closely in 2 Kgs 17:13 and in Jer 3:14, 22; 18:11. Jer 25:5, 35:15 are very close to 2 Kgs 17:13 (see also Ezek 14:6, 18:30, 33:11; Hos 14:3; Joel 2:12, 14; Zech 1:3, 4, 9, 12; Mal 3:7). 10. See Thiel 1973, 1981; Levin 1985; Stipp 1992, 1998; Schmid 1996; and Maier 2002. The implication of the use of paradigms and formulas from the Deuteronomistic Deuteronomy or from the redactional layers of Joshua–Kings does not, of course,

Reinhard Achenbach

98

Table 2. Parallels in Conversion Sermons to Judah 2 Kings 17:13 ‫ויעד יהוה ביׂשראל וביהודה ביד כל־נביאו‬ ‫כל־חזה לאמר ׁשבו מדרכיכם הרעים וׁשמרו‬ ‫מצותי חקותי ככל־התורה אשר צויתי את־‬ ‫אבתיכם ואׁשר ׁשלחתי אליכם ביד עבדי‬ ‫הנביאים‬

Jeremiah 18:11; 35:15 ‫ועתה אמר־נא אל־איׁש־יהודה ועל־יושבי‬ ‫ירוׁשלם ׁשובו נא איׁש מדרכו הרעה והיטיבו‬ ‫דרכיכם ומעלליכם‬ ‫ואׁשלח אליכם את־כל־עבדי הנבאים הׁשכים‬ ‫וׁשלח לאמר ׁשבו־נא איׁש מדרכו הרעה‬ ‫והיטיבו מעלליכם‬

18:9–14 had forbidden all sorts of divination and Jeremiah had suffered conflicts with controversial prophetic announcements, Deut 18:15–22 attempts to connect a selected variety of prophetic tradition with a divine revelation rooted in the Mosaic revelations. It thus subsumes the prophecy under the measures of scribal erudition and interpretation. At several places in the book of Jeremiah, we can observe now that this theory is applied together with the historical theory mentioned in 2 Kgs 17:13. This means that the book of Jeremiah has been largely reworked by scribes, who are not simply­“Deuteronomists” in the sense of the authors of the Deuteronomistic versions of Deuteronomy, but the history of rewritings and reworkings in Jeremiah are part of a post-Deuteronomistic development, where the historical views of 2 Kings 17 and the lately introduced theological theory on the revelation of the word of God from Deuteronomy 18 are combined. The scribes responsible for this assumed another source of divine revelation beside the Torah of Moses in the Prophets. Now, let us look at some examples. In Jeremiah 11, the prophet announces the new words of a covenant. The word that came to Jeremiah from Yhwh 11, saying: “Listen 12 to the words of this covenant 13 and tell them to each citizen of Judah and over imply that the authors are the same. The redactional concepts of the reworkings in Jeremiah go far beyond the Deuteronomistic views of the Deuteronomistic Historians. See Römer 2009: 168–83; Otto 2007a: 134–82, 2009: 515–60, 2007b: 171–84; Achenbach 2007: 26–71. 11.  The formula ‫ הדבר אׁשר היה אל־ירמיהו מאת יהוה לאמר‬is obviously part of a redactional composition and appears several times in the book (Jer 11:1, 18:1, 21:1 [25:1], 30:1, 32:1, 34:1, 8; 35:1, 40:1). 12.  ‫ דברי‬/ ‫ ׁשמעו דבר יהוה‬/ ‫ ׁשמעי‬/ ‫ ;ׁשמע‬cf. Jer 2:4, 7:2, 10:1 (11:10; 13:10), 17:20, 21:11, 22:2, (22:29), (29:19) 20, 31:10, 42:15; ‫ׁשמעו את־דברי הברית הזאת‬: Jer 11:2, 6, 7; ‫ׁשמעו בקול יהוה‬: Jer 7:23, 28; 32:23; (see also 42:6, 13); 42:21, 44:23; ‫ׁשמעו‬ ‫בקולי‬: Jer 7:23, 11:7). 13.  ‫ דברי הברית‬refers to: (a) the Decalogue in Exod 34:28; (b) the covenant of Moab (= the Deuteronomic laws) in Deut 28:69 (except the Decalogue; cf. Deut 5:2);

The Unwritten Text of the Covenant

99

all those who dwell in Jerusalem! 14 Tell them: Thus says Yhwh, the God of Israel: Cursed 15 is the man who does not listen 16 to the words of this covenant, that I commanded your forefathers on the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, from the smelting furnace, 17 saying: Listen to my voice and do everything, I command you, then you will be my people and I will be your God, 18 that I will fulfill the oath that I have sworn to your forefathers, to give them a land flowing with milk and honey, the land you possess today!” And I answered, saying: “Amen, 19 Yhwh!” (Jer 11:1–5)

The language is peculiar to a systematic structuring edition of Jeremiah, as we can see from the parallels to v. 1. The “words of the covenant,” according to Exod 34:28, are the words of the Decalogue written on the second tablets by Yhwh himself (Exod 34:1). According to the redactional shape of the Deuteronomistic frame in Deuteronomy, except from the words of the covenant at Mount Horeb, Yhwh had commanded Moses to write down in Moab the words of a covenant that Moses had to make with the Israelites (Deut 28:69). According to Deut 29:8 the generation of the conquest receives the command from Moses, “to keep to the words of this covenant.” Jer 11:8 confirms the covenantal theology and message of Deuteronomy: They would not listen or give ear, but they all followed the willfulness of their evil hearts; so I have brought upon them all the words of this covenant, because they did not do what I commanded them to do! 29:9; (c) the scroll read out by Josiah, 2 Kgs 23:(2), 3 (//2 Chr 34:[30], 31); (c) the law proclaimed at the time of the Exodus, Jer 11:2, 3, 6, 8; 34:18. The concept of Jeremiah 11 thus already refers to a combined Hexateuch including Exodus 20­–34* and Deuteronomy. 14.  ‫ איש יהוד ישבי ירושלם‬2 Kgs 23:2 (cf. 2 Chr 34:30); Jer 4: (3), 4; 11:2, 9; 17:25, 18:11, 32:32, 35:13. Even the parallelism in addressing Judean men and the citizens of Jerusalem is, with the exception of these texts, mentioned only in Dan 9:7. The references of Jeremiah thus clearly go back to the concept of an ideal representation of Israel within the realm of Jerusalem and Judah. 15.  The curse of Jeremiah (‫ )ארור האיׁש‬echoes the curses of Deut 27:15–26 (‫ארור‬ ‫ ;האיׁש‬cf. v. 15); literarily, it is linked with Deut 29:9–12 and Josh 8:30–35, a text that refers not only to Deuteronomy but also to the Covenant Code (Josh 8:31; cf. Exod 20:25). The picture of Jeremiah resembles a Hexateuchal narrative that is not confined to Deuteronomistic writings. 16.  Deut 28:1. 17.  For the metaphor, see Deut 4:20 and 1 Kgs 8:51, texts that are additions with respect to their Deuteronomistic surroundings. 18.  Deut 29:12; cf. Deut 28:1. 19.  Again, the prophetic text takes up an element from the fictional rite described in Deut 27:15–26.

100

Reinhard Achenbach

The obligation to listen to the voice of Yhwh and to do what he says (‫ )שמע בקולו ועשה‬is the way that the authors of late layers in Deuteronomy express the idea of obedience (Exod 23:22 [Lev 26:14]; Deut 5:27, 6:3, 26:14, 30:8, 12, 13 [2 Kgs 18:12 neg.]; and Jer 11:4). At the day of the promulgation the whole people enters into the covenant accepting its obligations and the oath taken on them (Deut 28:11). At the same time, they are declared to be the people of Yhwh, and Yhwh is proclaimed as the God of the whole nation (Deut 29:12; cf. 26:16–19). As in Deut 5:2–3, the generation of the covenant at Mt. Horeb and the generation at the border of the promised land are subsumed under the obligations of the first covenant; in Deut 29:13–14 covenant with the generation at the strands of the Jordan is declared to refer to the generations­to come. Jeremiah 11 takes up this structure: Jeremiah is expected to speak to the generation at the time before the exile, proclaiming words of a covenant on the citizens of Judah and Jerusalem. His “prophetic message” is close to Deut 27:15–26: the prophet is laying the curse on those who do not obey the voice of Yhwh. What in Deuteronomy 27 refers to the generation of the conquest is now part of an obligation promulgated by the prophet Jeremiah. Yhwh repeats the promise of the land to the last preexilic generation, knowing perfectly well that at this time the land already was lost for Israel and had gone over into the possession of the heathen Babylonians. Jeremiah applies the covenantal texts and theology of Deuteronomy to this generation in danger and confirms that this generation has the possiblity to become the people of Yhwh again in a full sense of the word, when their members are prepared to obey the laws of Horeb and of Deuteronomy. The author of Jeremiah 11 thus states that the promise of Yhwh to Moses at Mt. Horeb mentioned in Deut 18:15–18 was fulfilled in Jeremiah. He was the prophet to repeat the words of Yhwh that he already had put into the mouth of Moses, because Yhwh had put his words also into the mouth of Jeremiah (Jer 1:9). The redactor of Jeremiah 11 applies the same paradigm as that created in Deuteronomy 18. The contents of Jeremiah’s message is formulated in accordance with the contents of the Mosaic kerygma and covenantal theology. But—different from Deuteronomy 27—the covenantal proclamation is answered not by the people but by Jeremiah himself only: “And I answered: Amen, Yhwh!” The people do not listen to the prophet’s covenantal message. Jer 11:6–8 illustrates the resume of 2 Kgs 17:13–17 and fulfills the prophecy of Deut 18:18. Although this text seems to refer to a series of prophets and “seers” (Isa 1:1 and passim), the divine warning through the prophets is mentioned only in Jer 11:7:

The Unwritten Text of the Covenant

101

Table 3. The Message of Jeremiah and Canonization in 2 Kings 17:13–15a Jeremiah 11:6–8 ‫ויאמר יהוה אלי קרא את־כל־הדברים האלה‬ ‫בערי יהודה ובחצות ירוׁשלם לאמר ׁשמעו‬ ‫את־דברי הברית הזאת ועשיתם אותם‬ ‫כי העד העדתי באבותיכם ביום העלותי אותם‬ ‫מארץ מצרים ועד־היום הזה הׁשכם והעד‬ ‫לאמר ׁשמעו בקולי‬ ‫ולא ׁשמעו ולא־הט֣ו את־אזנם וילכו איׁש‬ ‫בשרירות לבם הרע ואביא עליהם את־כל־‬ ְ ‫דברי הברית־הזאת אשר־צויתי לעׂשות ולא‬ ‫עשו‬

2 Kings 17:13–15a ‫ויעד יהוה בישראל וביהודה ביד כל־נביאו‬ ‫כל־חזה לאמ֗ר ׁשבו מדרכיכם הרעים וׁשמרו‬ ‫מצותי חקותי ככל־התורה אׁשר צויתי את־‬ ‫אבתיכם ואׁשר ׁשלחתי אליכם ביד עבדי‬ ‫הנביאים‬ ‫ולא ׁשמעו ויקשו את־ערפם כערף אבותם‬ ‫אׁשר לא האמינו ביהוה אלהיהם‬ ‫ומאסו את־חקיו ואת־בריתו אׁשר כרת את־‬ ‫אבותם ואת עדותיו אׁשר העיד בם‬

‫כי העד העדתי באבותיכם ביום העלותי אותם מארץ מצרים ועד־היום הזה השכם‬ ‫והעד לאמר שמעו בקולי‬ For I earnestly warned your fathers in the day that I brought them up out of the land of Egypt, even unto this day, rising early and warning, saying: “Obey my voice!”

The sermon of Jeremiah is a sermon delivered among the citizens of Judah and Jerusalem, calling them (v. 6) to “listen to the words of this covenant and do them!” Scholars have observed the so-called Deuteronomistic influence on the redactions of some of the Twelve Prophets and on Isaiah. However, the systematization of the teaching attached to Deuteronomy in Deut 18:15–18 is improved only by the scribes who were responsible for handing down and editing the scroll of Jeremiah and Baruch. Jer 11:6–8 takes up the concept of canonization from Deuteronomy 18 and interprets the message of Jeremiah in accordance with 2 Kgs 17:13 (see table 3). 2 Kings 17 20 stresses the rejection to obey the commandments, while Jeremiah 11 refers to the covenantal aspect of the demand. Both texts— Jeremiah 11 and 2 Kings 17—go back to the times of the forefathers: Jeremiah reminds the listeners of the role of the fathers, while the text illustrates in the form of a sermon the theory of 2 Kings 17. The Jeremiah text takes up the motif of ‫ תאמינו‬that we find in Isa 7:9, but also in Deut 1:32 and in the redactional interpretation found in Exod 14:31. The Jeremianic scroll intentionally takes up the covenant aspect from Deuteronomy that is also mentioned in 2 Kgs 17:15. The sermon of conversion of Jeremiah is written with intentional reference to Deuteronomy 18 and 2 Kings 17. The covenant theology of Jeremiah 11 corresponds to Deuteronomy 18. 20.  For the problem of diachronic stratification in 2 Kgs 17:7–20, see Blanco Wissmann 2008: 148–61.

102

Reinhard Achenbach

The text represents a very young state of text tradition; 21 vv. 7–8 are missing in the LXX, which means that it was lost in the Alexandrinian textual version (H.-J. Stipp 1994: 60–61) or that it had been left out by the scribes (C. Levin 1985b: 74). Jer 11:9–13 gives reason for the disaster afflicting Judah. In Jer 11:10, we read: “They have returned to the sins of their forefathers, who refused to listen to my words. They have followed other gods to serve them. Both the house of Israel and the house of Judah have broken the covenant I made with their forefathers!” It is obvious that there are several links between Deuteronomy 18 and the book of Jeremiah (Deut 18:18; cf. Jer 1:9). Jeremiah is the prophet from whom we know that God “put his words into his mouth,” as announced in Deut 18:18, in order “to speak in the name of the Yhwh” (cf. Deut 18:19). In the narrative about the lawsuit against Jeremiah, the ‫ השרים‬and the people speak to the priests and prophets (Jer 26:16: ‫אין־לאיׁש הזה מׁשפט־מות כי בׁשם יהוה אלהינו דבר‬ ‫)אלינו‬. The people and its leaders are witnesses of the truth of the Mosaic prophecy: he is the prophet, whom Yhwh has raised “to speak his words in his name” (‫) דברי אׁשר ידבר בׁשמי‬, as in Deut 18:19. It is mainly the book of Jeremiah where we find this formula, to speak or to prophecy “in the name of Yhwh” (see also Jer 11:21; 20:9 [26:9]; 44:16), and the prophet complains about this task and wants to end it but has to bear his sufferings (Jer 20:9: ‫)ואמרתי לא־אזכרנו ולא־אדבר עוד בׁשמו‬. Whereas Deut 17:8–13 relates to the written torah that stands under the auspices of levitical priests who “serve in the name of the Yhwh” (Deut 10:8; 18:5), Deut 18:16–18 develops the perspective of an oral torah under the control of scribes who follow the prophet who “speaks in the name of the Yhwh.” Thus, the non-Mosaic oral torah of the Prophets becomes the unwritten Text of the Covenant.

False Prophecy The false prophets prophesy falsely in the name of God (e.g., Jer 14:14–15; 23:25; 27:15; 29:21). The sermon against false prophets in Jer 23:16–22 follows the measures of 2 Kgs 17:13. According to this text, the content of a sermon sent by Yhwh is the call to conversion (‫שבו מדרכיכם‬ ‫)הרעים‬. Jer 23:22 stresses: “If they had stood in my council, they would have proclaimed my words to my people and would have turned them from their evil ways (‫)ויׁשבום מדרכם הרע‬.” The false prophets recount only “the visions from their own hearts, not what comes from the mouth of 21. See Levin 1985b: 74; Wanke 1995: 121; Maier 2002: 175–76.

The Unwritten Text of the Covenant

103

Yhwh,” Jer 23:16 (‫)חזון לבם ידברו לא מפי יהוה‬. They are no better than the prophets of Samaria, who prophesy the messages of Baal. In the account on the confrontation between Hananiah and Jeremiah in Jer 28:9, the redactional narrator says (Jer 28:9): “The prophet who prophesies peace will be recognized as one truly sent by Yhwh only if his prediction comes true”: ‫בבא דבר הנביא יודע הנביא אשר־ׁשלחו יהוה באמת‬

The law of the prophets in Deut 18:15–22 draws the consequences of these interpretive views of the late history of the kingdoms and introduces clear measures for the fraud of false prophecy: (1) When they speak words in the name of Yhwh that have not been commanded by Yhwh, they act presumptuously and blasphemously (Deut 18:20; ‫)יזיד‬, and they have to die (Jer 23:33). (2) When they speak words in the name of other gods (Jer 23:13), they have to die. (3) The truth of a prophecy is confirmed when the event announced takes place and becomes true (‫ ;יהיה יבוא הוא‬Deut 18:22) and vice versa.

Jeremiah 26 and 31 The account in Jer 26:2 reports a commandment from Yhwh to Jeremiah to tell the people from the cities of Judah who come to the temple in Jerusalem “all the words that I (=Yhwh) commanded you to tell them” (‫)כל־הדברים אשר צויתיך לדבר אליהם‬, and not to subtract one word (‫אל־‬ ‫)תגרע דבר‬. The prophet thus has a similar role to Moses’, teaching all the commandments that Yhwh commanded (cf. Deut 1:1; 6:1) and not adding or subtracting a word (Deut 4:2). The deity hopes that the people will turn from their evil ways (Jer 26:3: ‫ )וישבו איש מדרכו הרעה‬so that God may “repent” and refrain from bringing a disaster upon them (Jer 26:3: ‫)אנכי חשב לעשות להם מפני רע מעלליהם‬. The latter motif is reminiscent of Moses’ prayer (Exod 32:9–14) that leads to the repentance of God (‫וינחם‬ ‫)יהוה על־הרעה אשר דבר לעשות לעמו‬. 22 The former resembles the motif of 22.  The repentance of God is a frequent motif in Jeremiah, aside from the appearance of the motif in P: Gen 6:6, 7; redactionally in Exod 32:12, 14; 2 Sam 24:16; and in some prophetic Scriptures: Ezek 24:14; Joel 2:13, 14; Amos 7:3, 6; Jonah 3:9, 10. Cf. Jer 4:28; 18:8, 10; 20:16; 26:13, 19; 42:10. In speaking of Exod 32:12, 14 as redactional, I mean that it is doubtful that the text is Deuteronomistic. The prayer in Exod 32:11–14 is an insertion made by a redactor after an older version of this text had been quoted in Deut 9:12–14[15]. On this, see Aurelius 1988. The text provides

104

Reinhard Achenbach

the prophetic sermon, according to 2 Kgs 17:13: ‫שבו מדרכיכם הרעים ושמרו‬ ‫מצותי חקותי ככל־התורה‬. The message of Jeremiah, according to Jer 26:4–5, combines the idea of the obedience to the torah (v. 4: ‫אם־לא תשמעו אלי ללכת בתורתי אשר‬ ‫ ;נתתי לפניכם‬cf. 2 Kgs 17:13) with the concept of obedience to the words of Yhwh’s prophetic servants (v. 5: ‫לשמע על־דברי עבדי הנבאים אשר אנכי‬ ‫)שלח אליכם‬. The first formula is reminiscent of Deuteronomy (4:44: ‫וזאת‬ ‫ ;התורה אשר־שם משה לפני בני ישראל‬cf. 30:15–16), the second of 2 Kgs 17:13: ‫ככל־התורה אשר צויתי את־אבתיכם ואשר שלחתי אליכם ביד עבדי הנביאים‬. The torah revealed to the fathers with the mediation of Moses stands in a single line with the torah revealed to the “present” generation with the help of the prophets. In Jer 26:16, the leaders of the people declare that in contrast to all the priests and prophets of Judah (v. 7) it is Jeremiah who has spoken “in the Name of Yhwh” in accordance with Deuteronomy 18. The scribal redactional concept of the correlation between the Mosaic and the prophetic torah in Deut 18:15–22, 2 Kgs 17:13–15 and Jeremiah 26 is consistently the same. This means that the second part of the law on the prophets in Deuteronomy 18 was written with respect to the canonization of the prophetic torah in Jeremiah (and perhaps also in other books, as indicated by the mentioning of Micah in Jeremiah 26). The covenantal theology in Jeremiah 11 and the torah theology in Jeremiah 26 is integrating the message of the book of Jeremiah with the message of Deuteronomy. A further development is represented by Jer 31:31–34: the covenant of the fathers as referred to in Jer 3:14 and Jeremiah 11 will be replaced by a new covenant of a general religious renewal of the people of Israel and Judah, filling their “inner consciousness with the torah” and with God’s word written on “their hearts” (Jer 31:33). We see a culture of torah obedience rooted in the oral tradition of the prophets as formulated by the scribes of their scrolls: this seems to be the force of the unwritten covenant announced in Deut 18:15–18. a new condition for the narrative about the punishment of Israel, because Yhwh already repents and withdraws his decision to destroy his people before Moses enacts the punishment of those responsible for the idolatry. Thus, the redactor prepares the (enlarged) narrative of the covenant-renewal in Exod 34:5–7 (compare Deut 10:1–5). According to my view, this redactor was the one who gave the Hexateuch its compositional ground-shape (Grundgestalt). With respect to the Deuteronomistic theology of retribution, this redactor stresses the preponderance of grace. The idea seems to come from P. The language connects to that of the Decalogue and the thoughts of those in the Deuteronomistic school. The concept reappears in 2 Sam 24:16 in a form in which the legend contains the new teaching in an almost dogmatic paradigm.

The Unwritten Text of the Covenant

105

The historical and theological concept established by the late redaction of Deuteronomy and Jeremiah has been reflected in the prayer of Neh 9:26–34. Here, the spiritual background is expressed in Neh 9:30: “By your spirit you admonished them through your prophets!” (‫ותעד בם ברוחך‬ ‫)ביד־נביאיך‬. In the memorial of Neh 13:15, Nehemiah takes the role of the warning and testifying prophet (“I warned them against selling food on that day (Sabbath)!” (‫ ;ואעיד ביום מכרם ציד‬see also v. 21). The reform of Nehemiah may be the impulse to launch the sermon on the Sabbath in Jer 17:19–27 (cf. Jer 17:21; Neh 13:19). The redactional activity we observe in Deut 18:15–18, 20–22 is not part of a Deuteronomistic reform or restoration program, but it is a part of a redactional effort of scribes in the process of the postexilic canonization of prophetic scriptures. The non-Mosaic oral torah is interpreted as the “unwritten text of the Covenant.” As with the oral commandments of the Achaemenid great king, the authoritative legitimacy of these oral commandments is not doubted. They have to be considered as true and valid as the word of God himself. As a means of control, the text of the written covenant can be compared to their message; if the prophetic message will fail, this failure will lead to the conclusion according to the written torah in Deut 18:21–22.

Bibliography Achenbach, R. 1991 Israel zwischen Verheißung und Gebot: Literarkritische Untersuchungen zu Deuteronomium 5–11. Europäische Hochschulschriften 23/422. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 2005 The Story of the Revelation at the Mountain of God and the Redactional Editions of the Hexateuch and the Pentateuch. Pp. 126–51 in A Critical Study of the Pentateuch: An Encounter between Europe and Africa, ed. E. Otto and J. Le Roux. Altes Testament und Moderne 20. Münster: Lit. 2007 Die Tora und die Propheten im 5. Und 4. Jh. v. Chr. Pp. 26–71 in Tora in der Hebräischen Bibel. Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte und synchronen Logik diachroner Transformationen, ed. R. Achenbach, M. Arneth, and E. Otto. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 7. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 2009 Das sogenannte Königsgesetz in Deuteronomium 17:14–20. Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 15: 216–33. 2011 “A Prophet Like Moses” (Deuteronomy 18:15)—“No Prophet Like Moses” (Deuteronomy 34:10): Some Observations on the Relation between the Pentateuch and the Latter Prophets. Pp. 435–58 in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research, ed. T. B. Dozeman, K. Schmid, and B. J. Schwartz. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 78. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

106

Reinhard Achenbach

Aurelius, E. 1988 Der Fürbitter Israels: Eine Studie zum Mosebild im Alten Testament. Coniectanea Biblica Old Testament 27. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. Blanco Wissmann, F. 2008 “Er tat das Rechte. . . .” Beurteilungskriterien und Deuteronomismus in 1 Kön 12–2 Kön 25. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 93. Zürich: TVZ. Dozeman, T. B. 2009 Exodus. Eerdmans Critical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Hossfeld, F. L. 1982 Der Dekalog: Seine späten Fassungen, die originale Komposition und seine Vorstufen. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 45. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Levin, C. 1985a Der Dekalog am Sinai. Vetus Testamentum 35:165–91. 1985b Die Verheißungen des neuen Bundes in ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Zusammenhang ausgelegt. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 137. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Maier, C. 2002 Jeremia als Lehrer der Tora: Soziale Gebote des Deuteronomiums in Fortschreibungen des Jeremiabuches. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 196. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Otto, E. 2007a Jeremia und die Tora: Ein nachexilischer Diskurs. Pp. 134–82 in Tora in der Hebräischen Bibel: Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte und synchronen Logik diachroner Transformation, ed. R. Achenbach, M. Arneth, and E. Otto. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 7. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 2007b Scribal Scholarship in the Formation of Torah and Prophets: A Postexilic Scribal Debate between Priestly Scholarship and Literary Prophecy. The Example of the Book of Jeremiah and Its Relation to the Pentateuch. Pp. 171–84 in The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance, ed. G. N. Knoppers and B. M. Levinson. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 2009 Jeremia und die Tora: Ein nachexilischer Diskurs. Pp. 515–60 in Die Tora: Studien zum Pentateuch: Gesammelte Schriften. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 9. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Perlitt, P. L. 1969 Bundestheologie im Alten Testament. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 36. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Römer, T. 2009 The Formation of the Book of Jeremiah as a Supplement to the SoCalled Deuteronomistic History. Pp. 168–83 in The Production of Prophecy: Constructing Prophecy and Prophets in Yehud, ed. D. V. Edelman and E. Ben Zvi. BibleWorld. London: Equinox.

The Unwritten Text of the Covenant

107

Schmid, K. 1996 Buchgestalten des Jeremiabuches: Untersuchungen zur Redaktions- und Rezeptionsgeschichte von Jer 30–33 im Kontext des Buches. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 72. Neukirchen-­ Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Stipp, H.-J. 1992 Jeremia im Parteienstreit. Studien zur textentwicklung von Jer 26,36–43 und 45 als Beitrag zur Geschichte Jeremias, seines Buches und judäischer Parteien im 6. Jahrhundert. Bonner Biblische Beiträge 82. Frankfurt am Main: Hain. 1994 Das masoretische und das alexandrinische Sondergut des Jeremiabuches. Textgeschichtlicher Rang, Eigenarten, Triebkräfte. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 136. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 1998 Deuterojeremianische Konkordanz. Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament 63. St. Otilien: Eos. Thiel, W. 1973 Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 41. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. 1981 Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 26–45. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 52. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Wanke, G. 1995 Jeremia, 1: Jeremia 1,1–25,14. Zürcher Bibelkommentare 20/1. Zürich: Zürcher Verlag. Zenger, E 1971 Die Sinaitheophanie: Untersuchungen zum jahwistischen und elohistischen Geschichtswerk. Forschung zur Bibel 3. Würzburg: Echter.

A Balancing Act Settling and Unsettling Issues Concerning Past Divine Promises in Historiographical Texts Shaping Social Memory in the Late Persian Period Ehud Ben Zvi University of Alberta

Introduction Central to the construction of social memory in the late Persian period, at least among the literati of the period, were memories of some core divine promises. Many of these core divine promises were understood and remembered in terms of ‫‘ ברית‬covenant’, even in cases in which central texts encoding these memories do not explicitly contain the term ‫ברית‬. For instance, whether the original writers of 2 Samuel 7 (whenever they lived) intended the divine promise to David to be understood as a ‫ברית‬ or not, 1 it is clear that the late Persian- or early Hellenistic-period literati construed the divine promise to David reported and evoked by 2 Samuel 7 as a ‫( ברית‬see 2 Sam 23:5; 1 Kgs 8:23–24 [implicitly]; Jer 33:17–21; 2 Ps 89:29; 2 Chr 13:5; 21:7). 3 Because no text was (or is ever) read by itself Author’s note: My thanks are due to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) for supporting the research leading to this essay and to the many colleagues with whom I discussed these matters. 1. See, for instance, McKenzie 2001; those who advance this position tend to maintain that for the original (redactionally reconstructed) “Deuteronomist” there was only one Mosaic covenant, the Horeb covenant renewed in Moab (see Deut 28:69; cf. 4:13 and 5:2–19, which is the same that was to be renewed at Mt. Gerizim/Ebal [see Deuteronomy 27]). 2. Jer 33:14–26, and thus Jer 33:17–21, is not present in the LXX Jeremiah, which here may well reflect an earlier version of the text, as it is often proposed—note also the “Chronistic flavor” of the text. See, e.g., Gosse 2011: 52–54; Leuchter, 2008: 72–81; McKane, 1996: clxii–clxiii, 861–65 and bibliography cited there. In any event, there is no question that questions about “eternal promises” were enduring questions within the discourse of the communities discussed here and, for that matter, within the discourses of many later communities that identified with “Israel.” 3.  As stated in its title, this essay focuses on “historiographical texts.” These texts have, obviously, certain genre characteristics that distinguish them from other texts

109

110

Ehud Ben Zvi

but within a cultural context and as an integral part of a general discourse, not only did these texts construe the promise to David as a ‫ברית‬, but they informed the literati’s readings of 2 Samuel 7 accordingly. Crucial promises were considered a ‫ברית‬, and promises raise the issue of obligation, because to make a promise is tantamount to set an obligation on oneself. 4 But the relation between the two is not unproblematic, (such as psalms, proverbs or prophetic texts) that existed within the repertoire of the community, or its literati, and thus it makes sense studying them separately. This said, references will be made, from time to time, in this essay to texts that are not historiographical. These references are more than justified. For one, concepts may be encoded and activated by texts, reflected and explored through them, continuously negotiated and renegotiated through (social) readings of texts within a community and the like, but concepts (and ideas and memories for that matter) are held by a community not by a written text. Moreover, no concept exists alone, by itself; instead, they exist and have meaning in relation to other concepts and as an integral component of the social mindscape and intellectual discourse of a community. It is extremely unlikely, and I would say unreasonable, to expect that core communal concepts such as ‫ ברית‬be encoded, explored, activated, shaped and reshaped by the community only within the boundaries of a single literary genre to the exclusion of all others (cf. other core concepts such as Torah). It is appropriate then to use, when relevant, references to ‫ ברית‬in texts other than “historiographical” to illuminate our historical reconstructions of the ways in which the community, or its literati, at least, constructed the meaning of ‫ ברית‬as they read and read their “historiographical” texts. Moreover, reading is always contextual and historically contingent. Actual readings (and, for that matter, acts of writing/ editing, which are to some extent a way of expressing, shaping and communicating particular “readings” and “rereadings”) of texts are never carried out in a “vacuum.” When the community read and reread the relevant historiographical texts, they did so informed by their world of knowledge, ideological viewpoints and social attitudes, even if, or likely even more so because, the process was dynamic and the reading of texts contributed to the shaping of the latter. Thus, even if our goal were only to understand how a particular text was read in the late Persian period, still we would have to deal with the world of knowledge of the community and be aware of other (nonhistoriographical) texts within the discourse of the community that informed, in ways known and unbeknownst to the community, its readings of the historiographical texts. Further, most of the nonhistoriographical texts mentioned here shaped images of the past and evoked and construed (social) memory just as the historiographical texts themselves. The comprehensive social memory of the community about particular events, char­ acters, and the like is influenced by all the relevant texts that it considers “authoritative.” 4.  Not surprisingly, ‫ ברית‬appears at times in association with other terms within the large semantic/conceptual realm of “obligation.” See, for instance, the parallelism between ‫ דבר‬and ‫ ברית‬in 1 Chr 16:15//Ps 105:8; the association between ‫ ברית‬and ‫ דבר‬clearly communicated in 1 Kgs 8:23–24; and similar conceptual developments such as the association between ‫ שבועה‬and [implied] ‫ ברית‬in 1 Chr 16:16//Ps 105:9. It is worth noting that the sense of obligation exists when two parties enter into a ‫ברית‬, but also in the case of obligations taken by characters on themselves (e.g., 2 Chr 34:31; note that the ‫ ברית‬there is construed as “before Yhwh,” ‫)לפני יהוה‬. It is even more interesting when the term ‫ ברית‬stands for, evokes or even embodies a single particular

A Balancing Act

111

because a promise seems to create a reason (that is, the obligation) for doing something just by stating the intent to fulfill what was promised. 5 Not only is this conceptually problematic, but rarely would a society consider the value of the act of promising in itself as absolute so as to override completely all socially accepted moral rules. Jephthah is not praised for offering his daughter (see also, for instance, 1 Sam 14:45). Moreover, although Yhwh was characterized and remembered both as (a) fulfilling all his promises and not changing his mind, particularly when Yhwh is contrasted with human beings (Num 23:19; 1 Sam 15:29; see also Mal 3:6), and as (b) changing his mind and not following through with his promises, particularly but not exclusively when he is portrayed as merciful. 6 Promises, like any performative utterance, are nothing more but nothing less than a socially accepted practice, namely, promising, and as such they receive their meaning from society and generally agreed-on societal norms, which, of course, vary from time to time and are rarely absolute. In any case, this means that promising is to be understood within the social norms and the pragmatic understanding/s of “promise” and “promising” that exist in the relevant society. 7 To illustrate, one may claim that the reason for fulfilling promises may be grounded not in the very act of stating group or entity (see Mal 3:1; Isa 42:6; and Prov 2:17—note especially the parallelisms in the latter two; cf. also Dan 11:22, 28, 30; 1QM 14:4; 1QS 5:11, 18). Even in this case, ‫ ברית‬stands within the general semantic realm of obligation, because the group was essentially construed around such an obligation. In the cases relevant to this essay, obligations were understood and remembered as established by divine promises (see, for instance, Deut 7:9; 1 Kgs 8:23–24//2 Chr 6:14), whether they involve a “contract” or not. To be sure, the idea of a “contract” involving Yhwh is somewhat problematic because a “contract” is basically an obligation whose enforcement is implicitly assigned to an external agent and made dependent on some set of “objective” rules to be evaluated by that enforcer. On ‫ ברית‬and obligation, see Kutsch 1997. 5.  On general issues regarding promises, see Sheinman 2011. 6.  E.g., Hos 11:8–9; contrast the language used here with that of Num 23:19; 1 Sam 15:29. To improve readability, masculine pronouns have been used here in relation to Yhwh. Although this deity was construed as beyond the male/female dichotomies that characterized humans and other animals and thus was superior to them (see Genesis 1), it was also cast in roles which in human societies were clearly gendered (e.g., warrior, king, husband, father). 7. The crucial promises for the present study are divine promises. But socially shared norms regarding human promises were most likely involved with the construction of divine promises and their meanings. After all, gods were imagined, by necessity, on the basis of attributes, roles and norms that were known to the imagining society because they occurred in society itself (e.g., the god as shepherd, husband, king, mighty warrior, teacher; the god’s anger, compassion; the god’s council and messengers; and so on—all human roles and characteristics). In fact, the deity was, at least in part, construed as a superhuman and thus based on humans.

112

Ehud Ben Zvi

them but in the need not to lose socially granted trust and “honor” in general, and thus the need not to hinder one’s own future social transactions due to a loss of “status.” 8 One may claim that people may be socialized to keep promises in a society, because this facilitates social cooperation and that mutatis mutandis this applies to their constructions of the deity; for one who keeps promises is one with whom social cooperation can be easily imagined and remembered. A well-socialized (and one may say welltamed) “deity” is one with whom a reliable partnership can be struck, and therefore, society may have a stake in constructing and remembering such a deity. These images, though, were balanced by others as we shall see. In any event, given that promising is above all a social practice, then the pragmatic, not the “semantic” aspects of the remembered promises should be at the forefront of studies of their meanings and significances. “Remembered promises” indicates particular promises within the mnemonic and ideological landscape of the community. One of the best ways to construct a reasonable reconstruction of the pragmatic value of these promises in an ancient society is to examine the memories of these promises this sort of society holds, specifically in our case memories of core divine promises at the center of the social discourse of the literati of the period. This approach also opens the gates for a better understanding of the general discourse of the community. Clearly, the memories of the literati raised both settling and very unsettling issues about core divine promises.

Observations on Some Core Promises within the Community’s Mnemonic Landscape There is no doubt that there were a number of prominent core divine promises within the discourse and mnemonic world of the literati of the time, including the promise not to sweep away the entire world (the promise to Noah, Gen 8:21–22; 9:9–17), the promises of progeny and land for Israel (the promise to the patriarchs 9), and, among others, promises of the royal and priestly lines. All these promises involved Yhwh’s obligations. For obvious reasons, the works included in the Deuteronomistic His8.  This line of thinking about “promises” generated and was activated by some memories encoded within the literati’s authoritative repertoire of texts in the late Persian/Early Hellenistic periods, e.g., Exod 32:11–13; Jer 14:21. 9.  The promise of the land was associated with the patriarchs also in Deuteronomy and the DHC (e.g., Deut 6:10, 23; 8:1; 10:1; 31:7; 34:4; Josh 5:6; 21:41–43). Whether or not ‫ אבותם‬originally referred to the patriarchs or the fathers of the generations who actually entered the land, it is clear that by the late Persian/early Hellenistic period, it was understood to be the patriarchs.

A Balancing Act

113

tory—or as I prefer to call it, the Deuteronomistic Historical Collection (DHC)—and Chronicles evoked in the remembering community more memories directly associated with the promises of land and of royal and priestly lines than those of progeny as numerous as the sand of the sea or of not undoing creation. The land is certainly a central issue in Joshua and plays an important role in Judges as well. The conquest of the entire land was explicitly and saliently presented in the book of Joshua as a fulfillment of a divine promise (e.g., Josh 11:23; 23:14). But the late Persian/early Hellenistic, Jerusalem-­centered literati who read the book of Joshua were also asked to construe and vicariously experience a past in which the entire land was conquered and simultaneously not conquered by Joshua (and Yhwh; compare Josh 11:23 with Josh 13:1–6; also Josh 23:14 with Josh 23:1–5; and see Judg 1:1–2:5). Significantly, this tension did not lead to less social mindshare (or narrative space, for that matter) for the story. One should stress also that this tension was not hidden but explicit and for all to see. In fact, in the case of the conquest and nonconquest of the entire land, the relevant texts were even set in close literary proximity, so readers could not miss the point. 10 Tensions such as these served here and elsewhere as attention getters and drew particular attention to the heart of the matter. Thus, they served significant didactic purposes (cf. Jonah). 11 But if so, what was the effect 10. Examples of these and similar “logical” tensions appear in various texts and across genre boundaries. They are particularly common in prophetic literature and within the historiographical books; they appear not only in the DHC but certainly in Chronicles as well. To illustrate, the literati knew about Yhwh’s promise to Noah not to sweep away the world again (Gen 8:21–22; cf. Gen 9:9–17), but they also remembered a number of divine promises of future sweepings away of the created world, involving the massive killing of humans and animals (e.g., Zeph 1:2–3). Thus, Yhwh was remembered as a deity who obligated itself both never to sweep the world away and to sweep it away. Similar cases appear, as it shall be discussed here, in the historiographical works. The existence of a variety of texts encoding and evoking memories that reflected, communicated, and negotiated “divine obligations” in similar ways is only to be expected given that (a) the community shared a social mindscape that underlies and makes sense of shared social practices including promises, and (b) systemic preferences and dispreferences in the construction of social memories—including those dealing with promises—are not a function of a particular literary genre or of some rhetorical requirements or preferences in a single or set of related texts. 11.  In its construal of the divine promises, the metaprophetic book of Jonah reminded the readers that the promises were carried out in more than one way, more than once, and at the same time not carried out at all. Accordingly, Yhwh was construed in the book as a character who may fulfill its (self-)obligations, may not fulfill them at all, or may fulfill them in what, from the perspective of those receiving the promise, could

114

Ehud Ben Zvi

of remembering together both the presence and the absence of such a total conquest on the community, particularly in the ways it negotiated and thus constructed the meaning of promising as a social and pragmatic practice? Further, what could have been the effect of remembering that the promise of the land was given with full knowledge that its outcome would not last (e.g., Deut 30:20; 31:20–21; Josh 23:15)? Is this a “good faith” promise? And if not, what does it say about promising as a social practice? I will come back to these questions. The promise of the land was not exclusively, or one may say even mainly, associated with memories of the (construed) period of Joshua within the text/memory-centered community in late Persian/early Hellenistic Judah. It is not by chance that their usual mnemonic cipher was “the land which I swore to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob” or variants of it, 12 not “the land which I swore to Moses” or to “Joshua” or to their generation. To be sure, the remembered patriarchs never held or could have held possession of the “promised” land. The emphasis was thus on remembering the promise and its future fulfillment rather than remembering its fulfillment in a past that exists no more. There is a second principle at work here as well. The remembering community could see themselves closer to the (for the most part) powerless patriarchs than to a mighty warrior and military leader such as Joshua and his militarily powerful Israel. In fact, the common principle of enhancing “contemporary” identification in shaping social memories was at work even in the characterization of Joshua. The latter was, of course, remembered within this context as the successful leader of a military conquest. 13 But at the same time, this sort of image is balanced in the book of Joshua by a tendency to lessen the weight of his mighty warrior image and attach to him other attributes (for example, a secondary Moses, a prophetic figure, a torah/text-centered literati), thus creating a site of memory with which the literati could more readily identify. 14 Do these tendencies indibe described as either a less-than-straightforward manner or even an intentionally deceptive manner—whether for good moral purposes or not. Yhwh was construed as a deity doing all the above. See Ben Zvi 2003. 12.  E.g., Gen 12:7; 13:15, 17; 15:18; 24:7; 26:3; 28:13; 50:24; Exod 3:8; 6:8; 13:5, 11; 32:13; 33:1; Lev 26:42; Num 14:23; 32:11; Deut 1:8; 6:10; 9:5; 30:20; 34:4; Jer 11:5; cf. Ps 105:9–11; 1 Chr 16:15–18. 13.  E.g., Deut 1:38; 3:28; 31:7, 23; Josh 11: 7, 10–13, 16, 18, 21, 23, 12:7; and cf. Exod 17:9–13. 14.  One may note that mnemonic vignettes that emphasize the warrior-like character of the individual “hero” (e.g., 1 Sam 14:13–15; 18:7; 2 Sam 21:18–22) were not associated with Joshua. Moreover, it is Yhwh who defeats the enemy in all memorable

A Balancing Act

115

cate that, within the mnemonic landscape of the community, memories of promises that can be attached to characters with whom the community may more easily identify are more prominent than others? 15 And, in the case of positive promises, because of the principle of hope that is necessary for social reproduction, is it those promises that the society will tend to consider more “fulfillable,” even if in the distant future? 16 Whereas the “promised” land figures prominently in the book of Joshua, and to some extent in Judges as well, the promised king and his line figures prominently in the closely associated books of Samuel and Kings. This being so, it is particularly worth noting that this collection does not begin with David or a failed kingly foil to David such as Saul. Instead, it begins with and shapes a communal memory in which a lengthy apologia for the substitution of priestly with monarchic rule occupied a substantial section of memory-scape. 17 In any event, Samuel–Kings reminded the reading reports. The walls of Jericho fell because of a ritual performance, not Joshua’s military heroism. In the case of Ai, the successful ambush is devised by Yhwh, not Joshua (Josh 8:2). Cf. Josh 10:10–14. Significantly, the process of downgrading/lessening the relative weight of military/warrior features of great figures of the past was at work in the construction of Moses and Abraham and even in that of David. See especially Chronicles and Psalms, and note the famous citation from Wellhausen (1957: 182), “See what Chronicles has made out of David! The founder of the kingdom has become the founder of the temple and public worship, the king and hero at the head of his companions in arms has become a singer and master of ceremonies at the head of a swarm of priests and Levites.” Of course, ancient Near Eastern warrior kings (for example, neo-Assyrian kings) were also described as pious, praying, and building temples. The issue is the relative weight of certain attributes in the overall construction of the memory of the king, rather than any either/or logic. Chronicles did not innovate as much as it shifted the balance of memory, and because it is also a historiographic work, the matter cannot be explained away as just an issue of genre (cf. Psalms). See von Rad 2001: 350. 15.  Of course, as in all cases of identifications with (construed) characters of the past, there are gaps that cannot be easily bridged. Take, for instance, the identification of the community with the patriarchs. The ancestors of the patriarchs never held—or in the case of Abraham never were in—the land, but the literati in Yehud construed themselves as descendants from those who (at least partially) held it. Their memory of former possessions of the land brought to the forefront a different perspective on the land and its promise. The literati remembered the fall of Jerusalem and its temple, exile, and even an empty land. For them, promises about possession of the land were not only something incongruent with their present situation or a pointer to a distant future but also a reminder of a lost past, whose loss was also promised. 16.  Rather than the precise language of a text encoding memories of these promises. 17.  It is worth noting that the traditional mnemonic narrative of a new ruler (that is, the “usurper”) who brings down an impious regime and brings back order had to be extensively modified in this case. The ideological, generative grammar underlying Samuel–Kings could not allocate to David the traditional role of the “usurper” bringing down Samuel, the last priestly ruler; instead, it had to construe him as a kind of restorer

116

Ehud Ben Zvi

community in late Persian/early Hellenistic Judah that monarchy was not a “natural” situation for Israel, 18 and this reminder could not but have an effect on constructions of monarchic promises. 19 Moreover, although Samuel–Kings contained clear references to the promise to David and evoked it (e.g., 2 Samuel 7), the readers were introduced to the general matter of divine promises and their pragmatic meanings as social practices in 1 Sam 2:30. The text is presented as direct divine speech and is associated with a true prophet; in fact, it is the first divine speech in Samuel–Kings and involves the first instance of a prophetic speaker. The text here is blunt and explicit: ‫נאם־יהוה אלהי יׂשראל אמור אמרתי ביתך ובית אביך יתהלכו לפני עד־עולם ועתה‬ ‫נאם־יהוה חלילה לי כי־מכבדי אכבד ובזי יקלו‬ Yhwh the God of Israel declares: “I promised that your [Eli’s] family and the family of your ancestor should go in and out before me ‫ ;”עד עולם‬but now Yhwh declares: “Far be it from me; for those who honor me I will honor, and those who despise me shall be treated with contempt” (NRSV, with slight changes).

The text certainly communicates an interpretative key for negotiating the meaning of divine promises and whether Yhwh was construed as necessarily obligated to keep and fulfill them. A few observations sharpen matters further. First, the Yhwh of the text does not present the original divine promise as conditional (see vv. 27–28). To be sure, given the reason for annulling it in vv. 29–30, one may claim that the promise was implicitly construed as conditional. But, within this logic, any memory of a past or future “cancellation” of a divine promise that can be explained on account of impious behavior—in other words, almost any memory of a cancellation—would render any promise implicitly conditional. If this is the case here, then it is potentially the case everywhere. The lack of explicit referof order supported by Samuel. In other words, it needed a transitional Saul figure to gloss over the fact that David’s “restoration” of order is not a return to Samuel’s days but a new beginning, by constructing Samuel himself as an active agent supporting David’s kingship. Below, I discuss Samuel as a priest and successor of Eli. I expanded elsewhere on the multiple implications of constructions of Samuel as priest within the discourse of late Persian/early Hellenistic Yehud/Judah. See Ben Zvi 2014a. 18.  It is worth noting that poignant sites of memory activated memories of explicit, interpretive divine communications (e.g., 1 Sam 8:7) that associated priestly rule over Israel with Yhwh’s rule over it. 19.  The presence of this sort of apologia is not a given or something necessary just because there was no Davidic king in the remembering community, a point demonstrated beyond doubt by the absence of this apologia in Chronicles.

A Balancing Act

117

ence to conditionality in vv. 28–29 turns this text into a very substantial interpretive key and a central place for analyzing the ways in which the community negotiated the meaning of divine promises, including core promises. Second and directly related to the first observation, Eli’s response to Yhwh’s decision to break his promise to him and his house was ‫יהוה הוא‬ ‫‘( הטוב בעינו יעשה‬Yhwh, he will do what is good to him’ or ‘Yhwh, let him do what seems good to him’ or ‘He is Yhwh; he will/let him do what is/seems good to him’; 1 Sam 3:18). Although by all means this does not represent a strange position, 20 its implication is that, ultimately, Yhwh can overturn promises as Yhwh pleases. Third, the explicit use of the expression ‫ עד־עולם‬shows that Yhwh was remembered as a deity for whom yesterday’s “perpetual” was not necessarily today’s or tomorrow’s “perpetual.” This construction of Yhwh has direct impact on constructions of the social practice of promising and vice-versa, and is at work elsewhere in the discourse of the community. 21 Further, the expression ‫ עד־עולם‬in connection with a divine promise of leadership within the context of the book of Samuel links this verse to divine promises to David (e.g., 2 Sam 7:13, 16; 22:51; cf. 2 Sam 7:25 22 and 1 Kgs 2:45) and comments on what, from the perspective of the remembering community in the late Persian/early Hellenistic period, were considered to be problematic aspects of such a promise; after all, there was no Davidic king over them. Fourth, the explicit use of the language ‫‘ ובחר אתו מכל־ׁשבטי יׂשראל‬I [Yhwh] chose him out of all the tribes of Israel’ activates not only a reference to David (cf. 1 Kgs 8:16; 2 Chr 6:5; Ps 78:70; see also in relation to Solomon 1 Chr 29:1) but also, and perhaps more importantly, an expression that was mainly used in the historiographical books held by the community in reference to Jerusalem (1 Kgs 8:15–16; 11:32; 14:21; 20.  Cf. 2 Sam 10:12; 1 Chr 19:13; Isa 45:9; Job 9:12; see also 1 Chr 21:23, which refers not to a divine king but to King David, as perceived from the perspective of Ornan. Note also the idea that no one can tell the king, divine or human, what to do (e.g., Qoh 8:4). 21.  Similar considerations apply to the pentateuchal expression ‫( ברית עולם‬see Mason 2008, with bibliography). None of this is surprising in view of the previous observation about promises as social practices within a shared social mindscape. It is also not surprising given that ‫ עד־עולם‬does not necessarily mean “eternal” (see, for instance, 1 Sam 1:22; 2 Sam 12:10; 1 Kgs 2:33) and thus its meaning is malleable according to the communicative circumstances in which it is used. 22.  Note the different verbal forms used in vv. 24 and 25 and the rhetorical effect to which this difference is used.

118

Ehud Ben Zvi

2 Kgs 21:7; 2 Chr 6:5–6 and 33:7; 1 Kgs 8:15–16//2 Chr 6:5–6 share with 1 Sam 2:27–28 also an association between the promise and the Exodus). This web of texts hinted at yet another possible way of negotiating the meaning of the broken promise to Eli, not instead but in addition to the one mentioned above, linking Eli and David. The promise to Eli may be approached as creating a mnemonic path and, one may say, an implied narrative linking the broken promise to Eli to the discursively and ideologically far more crucial divine promise regarding Jerusalem. I will return to Jerusalem and the promise to keep it as the city of Yhwh’s temple, Yhwh’s capital city and as such as the cosmic center of the world, from the perspective of the mentioned community. 23 Fifth, breaking the promise to Eli was conceptualized in terms of breaking the promise to his biological progeny. But the promise of priesthood was not conceptualized in these terms. After all, the text reported and the community remembered that an “adopted son” who was an Ephraimite, namely, Samuel, succeeded Eli. 24 Even if the community at one level was aware that the House of Eli continued serving as priests before the ark well after the events reported in 1 Sam 2–4 (see esp. 1 Sam 22:20 and 1 Kgs 2:27)—a matter that in itself calls for negotiating the pragmatic meaning of Yhwh’s words in 1 Sam 2:2—and even if, contrary to the seeming logic of the narrative in this section of the book of Samuel, the ‫ כהן נאמן‬and ‫בית‬ ‫ נאמן‬of 1 Sam 2:30 were understood as references to Zadok and his house (see 1 Kgs 2:27), still the fact remains that Samuel was remembered as an important priest. 25 After all, he takes the place of the biological sons of Eli. The implications of remembering Samuel as priest (not only as prophet or judge) were significant in terms of negotiating the meaning of the remembered divine promises of priesthood to a particular line. It certainly raised the issue of whether individuals who were not originally from Levi, or Zadok for that matter, may serve as priest. This issue was, of course, known to the literati and reflected and communicated in other authorita23.  To be sure, Jerusalem was remembered as all these things, but at the same time not necessarily as a city that cannot be conquered or temporarily razed. 24. Cf. Polzin 1993: 42–43. The logic of the narrative, which contrasts Eli’s (biological) sons with Samuel, makes that point unmistakable. To be sure, the community knows that Samuel later on loses his leadership position, but this sort of event was not associated with breaking the promise to Eli (see 1 Sam 2:31–36; 1 Samuel 4). 25.  It is true that Samuel is not explicitly called “priest” in the narrative, but 1 Sam 2:11, 18–19; 3:1, and the salient contrast between Samuel and the sons of Eli, who are priests, between the old, corrupt order and the new order about to emerge, serve to characterize Samuel as a priest. The fact that 1 Chr 6:12–13 (most English translations, 6:27–28) turns him into a Levite is proof positive that Samuel was remembered as a priest by the late Persian/early Hellenistic period.

A Balancing Act

119

tive works within the repertoire of the community (cf. Isa 56:6–7; 66:21, which raise the issue of originally non-Israelites priests). The issue is, of course, taken up also by Chronicles, which attempts to balance the memory of Samuel evoked by the book of Samuel by turning Samuel (and Elkanah, of course) into (genealogical/biological) Levites (1 Chr 6:12–13; most English translations 6:27–28) and thus trying to inform the community’s reading of Samuel. The presence of various and conflicting voices attests to the fact that the reading was well inside the boundaries shaped by the social mindscape of the community. Moreover, this is just one aspect of a more general issue that directly affects the community’s understanding of a central, hereditary divine promise within the discourse of the community, namely, the promise/s regarding Israel. Are those who were not genealogically Israel allowed to become Israel? The answer seems not always, but for the most part positive (e.g., Isa 14:1), and given the tendency to “priestize” Israel, 26 this answer was not irrelevant to the pragmatic understanding of the hereditary promise to Levi. 27 On the surface, at least, to the literati of the late Persian/early Hellenistic period, memories of divine promises to Levi or some of his descendants did not seem in need of negotiation in the same way as memories of the promise to David were. After all, there were legitimate priests in Jerusalem at that time, as the literati knew very well, 28 but there was no Davidic king in Jerusalem or hope for one to emerge in the normal course of worldly events. There is no question that the promise to David figured quite prominently in the memory-scape of the community. Multiple texts, across various literary genres, evoked that site of memory many times, directly and indirectly. 29 The question is, however, how this promise was negotiated by 26.  This tendency is encoded in and communicated by texts across genre boundaries, because it played important (and generative roles) within the discourse of the community and thus was bound to emerge in various places. See, for instance, Exod 19:6 and Ps 114:2; cf. Lev 19:2. 27. Cf. Ben Zvi 2014a. 28.  The Jerusalem-centered literati of the late Persian/early Hellenistic period were not only obviously aware of the existence of the temple in Jerusalem, which by itself requires priests to function, but were probably supported by the temple and its priests. On priests and literati at that time see Ben Zvi 2004. (The distribution of roles among the “sons of Levi” and especially that of the “Levites” when this term is used in contradistinction to “priests” was very much a debated issue, but the matter cannot be discussed here.) 29.  See 2 Sam 7:1–17; Ps 89:29; 132:1–18; also 2 Sam 23:5; 1 Kgs 8:23–24; 15:4; 2 Kgs 8:19; Isa 55:3; Jer 33:14–26; 2 Chr 13:5; 21:7.

120

Ehud Ben Zvi

the community in response to their circumstances and their core memory of the fall of Jerusalem and the monarchic polity. The previous survey shows that the memory of the fate of the divine promise to the House of Eli shaped one possible response: namely, the community could construe the divine promise to David as cancelled. This sort of approach was consistent with other memories of divine promises, with conceptual approaches to promises as social practice, even if projected to the realm of deity, and with some characterizations of and memories of Yhwh. 30 Moreover, because the promise to David was generally understood as a promise to reign over all Israel, not Judah alone, 31 remembering that Jeroboam could have had an enduring house (‫ )בית נאמן‬32 involved already a renegotiation over the meaning of the divine promise to David. In this case, the renegotiation strongly narrowed its scope and, despite explicit rhetoric to the contrary, carried by itself the possibility of further narrowing and renegotiation. 33 To be sure, Chronicles did not shape a mnemonic narrative in which Jeroboam could have had a divinely appointed enduring house. 34 Instead, significantly, Chronicles reshaped causality. Whereas in Kings it is because of sins that the promise is renegotiated, in Chronicles it is quite the opposite; Yhwh decides to divide the kingdom during a pious period. Whereas Kings evoked in the mnemonic community typical images of punishment for sin (and the conditionality of all divine promises), Chronicles evoked a sense that Yhwh does as Yhwh wishes, and at times Yhwh’s 30.  Of course, it is also consistent with the generally agreed position, by now, that the covenant of David—and other covenants as well—was conditional. See, for instance, McKenzie 2001 and Avioz 2012 and literature cited there. McKenzie encapsulated the point, stating, “The Davidic promise was always subject to Yahweh, not the other way around” (2001: 177). I will return to this quotation. For the general conditionality of covenants/promises, see recently Mason 2008 (and cited literature). Mal 2:4–9 assumes that the covenant is conditional. In fact, readers were asked to imagine and remember Yhwh trying to help the offending party (the priests) to hold the covenant (see esp. Mal 2:4). But one has to keep in mind that within the world that the literati construed covenants—like all types of divine promises—could at least potentially be cancelled by the deity without a humanly understandable reason. 31.  The point that David is promised to rule over “(all) Israel” (i.e., not just Judah) is clear from 2 Samuel 7 (and its context) and the same position is implied in texts such as Jer 33:14–16; Ezek 37:22–25; Hos 3:5. 32.  See 1 Kgs 11:38. 33. In fact, one may claim that the forceful rhetoric to the contrary (see 1 Kgs 11:32, 34, 36) emerged as a response to the implications for the “eternal” value of Yhwh’s promise to David and reflected some uneasiness about them. One is reminded of the famous expression “The lady doth protest too much, methinks,” Hamlet, Act 3, scene 2, 230. 34.  The same holds true for LXX Kings. See Schenker 2000.

A Balancing Act

121

decisions cannot be explained by humans, including the implied author of Chronicles. 35 But this being so, and because Yhwh’s path was construed as not always explainable or predictable and Yhwh was construed as sovereign, then just as Yhwh can promise, Yhwh can revoke his promises, without any understandable reason. Paraphrasing S. L. McKenzie, one may say that, within the discourse of the community, divine promises were always subject to Yhwh, not the other way around. 36 But the fact that the community could potentially imagine the promise to David as cancelled does not mean that they always had to imagine it as such. Other ways of negotiating the meaning of the promise to David existed in the community. The promise could be and was at times construed as relevant to the future and yet to be fulfilled. This approach is explicitly manifested in and communicated by some texts in the prophetic books that shaped images and memories of a utopian future in which a highly elevated Davidide plays a central role. 37 The fact that these images are attested in and evoked by prophetic but not historiographical books is not grounded on discursive or ideological differences within the community but on genre constructions. Prophetic books could and did construe memories of the past and the future; historiographical books were meant to shape memories of the past. The main narrative of the “national” histories was organized around kings and kings’ regnal periods. These “national” histories had to conclude, in the main, with the last king of Judah. 38 Prophetic books certainly did not have such a 35. See Ben Zvi 2006: 117–43. The underlying ideological stance was common in the general discourse of the period and played an important balancing role in terms of allowing the community to make sense of the world. Its centrality in the social mindscape of the community is attested by the fact that such a stance is reflected in and communicated by, directly and indirectly, various texts held by the community, across boundaries of genre and topic. See, for instance, 1 Sam 3:18; Isa 45:9; Job 9:12; Prov 19:21; 20:24. 36.  See n. 30. 37.  See, for instance, Isa 9:5–6; 11:1–9; Jer 23:5–6; 30:8–11; 33:14–26; Ezek 34: 23–30; 37:15–28; Hos 3:5; Amos 9:11–15; Mic 5:1. This Davidide of the utopian future was remembered by the community as a highly elevated human being (see Isa 9:5–7; 11:1–9; Hos 3:5), very different from the community’s memories of monarchic David or Solomon as evoked in the “historical” books. 38.  The reason is simple: books such as Kings and Chronicles could not have continued their periodization of history and their organization of time around local kings, as required by their basic character as “national,” polity-centered histories. Adopting a strongly ideological, framing structure based on the regnal periods of Achaemenid kings was, for obvious reasons, not a good option and was certainly not taken up. This means that this sort of construction and periodization of “national” history can reach only to the end of the monarchy, and indeed both Kings and Chronicles end their

122

Ehud Ben Zvi

limitation. The only thing historiographical books could (and did) do was to allow the community to hold the hope for a future, utopian Davidic renewal by leaving open the door for the continuation of the line of David. 39 But other ways of negotiating the promise existed. For instance, the rebuilder of the temple within social memory at the time, namely Cyrus, had to be both a foreign king and also partially Davidized, because as rebuilder of the temple he is a kind of “second David.” 40 This trend is attested by and communicated by books as diverse as Chronicles and Isaiah; it shaped and evoked a basic mnemonic narrative that moved from David to Cyrus, from temple to temple. 41 It is easy to understand that, within the discourse of the period, the meaning of the promise to David was renegotiated also to mean the promise to Israel. This is due to the related processes of (a) ideological “royalization” of Israel; (b) remembering David, particularly the sinful and heavily punished David, as embodying and symbolically representing Israel, and thus contributing to shaping a shared conceptual realm that includes both David and Israel; (c) numerous memories of a utopian future in which Davidides play no role, 42 but Israel does; and (d) explicit memories of a utopian future that do not mention David but in which the ‫ ברית‬is with the people (Jer 50:4–5). The “classical” text expressing this approach is taken to be Isa 55:3–11, but a similar, underlying trend can be detected also in Chronicles. There was a tendency in Chronicles to renegotiate the fulfillment of the promise to David in communal and above all temple-centered terms. Chronicles suggested to its readers that they main narratives at that point, even if both include an “afterword” notice, and the one in Chronicles is particularly significant. To be sure, books within the repertoire of the community may still contain references to the regnal years of Achaemenid kings (e.g., Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, and Zechariah), but obviously these are not comprehensive “national,” polity-centered histories as Kings and Chronicles are. 39. See Knoppers 2003: 332–36, and literature cited there. As for the end of Kings, see Wilson 2014 and literature cited there. 40. The same applies to Zerubabbel, the Israelite/Yehudite associated with the building of the temple who ended up being construed as a Davidide in 1 Chr 3:19 and is elevated in Hag 2:21–22. Of course, through the centuries other figures were associated with Davidic lineage (e.g., Jesus, Hillel, R. Judah HaNasi). Processes of Davidization did not completely stop. For a recent example, see the case of David Koresh and his founding of a “davidic kingdom.” (One may note that Ben Gurion mused, though very briefly, about a “Third Kingdom of Israel.”) 41.  The highly elevated character of the construed and remembered Cyrus of the literati contributed to this characterization (and vice versa). On the elevated character of Cyrus, see, for instance, Isa 44: 24–28; 45:1–8, 11–13. Goldingay (2005: 253–300) describes all of Isa 44:24–45:25 as “the triumph of Cyrus.” See also Isa 48:12–15. 42.  See, for instance, those evoked by Isa 40–66; Jer 50:4–5, 19–20; Ezek 16:60; Hos 2:18–22; 14:6–9; Obadiah; Zephaniah 3.

A Balancing Act

123

could construct the fulfillment of the promise to David through the prism of the existence of the (present or future utopian) temple and (present or future utopian) temple-centered Israel. 43 Above all, from a conceptual perspective, Chronicles reminded the community that the typical association between Davidic kings and the temple in Jerusalem and the divine legitimization of monarchic rule associated with temple building/establishing activities were now transferred to the community in Yehud. 44 Some 43.  Commonly mentioned texts in this regard are 1 Chr 16:22, 28:20, and the lack of reference to Davidides within the community of 1 Chronicles 9; the common exchange from David’s house/kingdom to Yhwh’s house/kingdom (e.g., 1 Chr 17:14; 28:5; 29:23; 2 Chr 13:5, 8); and the quasi-royal characterization of Jehoiada the priest in 2 Chronicles 23–24, which goes as far as possible given the constraints of imagining a priest in the monarchic period but includes even a note about his burial among the kings of Judah (see in particular 2 Chr 23:16, 18–19; 24:3, 12, 14–16). This construction of Jehoiada was likely a projection of a utopian priestly, Jerusalemite ruler like the one the community wanted to have, made to fit within a narrative and mnemonic world of a past, monarchic/Davidic Judah. (For an alternative, but also non-Davidic, nonmonarchic Israel and its leadership, see 2 Chr 28:8–15; see Ben Zvi 2006: 223–31.) There is considerable debate as to whether Chronicles shows a royalist, messianic tendency or a nonroyalist, nonmessianic, communal and temple-centered tendency, and to what extent these agendas are future and possibly utopian and present focused—the latter in particular, but not exclusively, for the nonroyalist, communal/temple-centered agenda. For a recent survey of many of the important positions taken in research on the matter and substantial bibliography, see Boda 2014. I would argue that all these “voices” are present in Chronicles and that they complement and balance each other, but certainly do not “cancel” each other out. I would further argue that it is the intertwining of these multiple voices that represents both the discourse of the period and the “voice” of the implied author of Chronicles as construed by the literati in the late Persian/early Hellenistic period. 44.  This holds true even if the command to “build” the temple is associated with Cyrus (and through Cyrus with Yhwh) and even as I argued elsewhere, even if the temple was partially (and only partially) construed as an Achaemenid enterprise. This is not the place for a substantial discussion of these matters; it suffices to notice that to “build/establish” the temple, proper knowledge is necessary—including knowledge of the place where it should be erected, of its basic pattern, and above all of its proper service. It is not by chance that according to Chronicles, the main “builder” of the temple was David, not Solomon, the king who actually built it. In the Persian period, it is the community that is responsible; Cyrus was not imagined as knowing Moses’ and David’s instructions for a proper Jerusalemite temple, as construed by the community. Moreover, the act of “building/establishing” the proper temple/cult was not imagined as complete once for all. In monarchic times, Davidic kings were construed as responsible for ensuring that the temple was established/run properly, that is, according to Moses and David’s instructions on their own times—which involved, from time to time and as necessary activities such as cleansing the temple, ensuring proper cult, proper cultic community and (re)building as necessary, or lack thereof when kings failed in their tasks. Within the discourse of the community, all these roles were now construed as Israel’s, as was Torah.

124

Ehud Ben Zvi

version of this point was made also in Kings, through the subordination of the temple to torah (see the story of Josiah’s scroll), 45 because the torah is Israel’s and not (only) the Davidic king’s. Tendencies to negotiate the promise to David in communal terms were at work elsewhere in the prophetic books, prominently in the construction of Yhwh’s servant, which clearly contains elements of royal and even “imperial” imagery, but also likely in the image of the future king in Zech 9:9. 46 One may mention also that when a group was engaged in a political project that failed catastrophically (its fall was accompanied with extreme calamity) and that had no chance to succeed under any foreseen circumstances, the group may reconstrue itself and its identity in cultural/religious terms and thus may construe itself as engaged in a cultural/religious project. 47 This shift from political to cultural/religious project is consistent with the identification/transformation of King David with/to a temple centered community. This draws attention to a variety of ways in which the community could and did renegotiate the divine promise to David. It could be understood as broken, as yet to be fulfilled, as referring to a highly elevated Davidide or to the people or to Cyrus, and any combination of these. Each of these understandings manifested itself across various literary genres and with subvariations. Each emerged out of a socially shared, implied generative grammar, and each manifestation informed the others. These understandings together provide a representation of the general discourse of the community. But where do these considerations leave us in terms of better understanding the pragmatic meanings of divine promises? Certainly, remembering the past evoked by the DHC, the Primary History (Genesis–2 Kings), Chronicles, other past-construing texts, as well as remembering the future vicariously experienced by reading prophetic books, raised both “settling” and very “unsettling” issues regarding core divine promises for the community. At the conceptual level, all promises were breakable, but they were also “promises,” that is, “obligations.” 45. E.g., Römer 2000. 46.  The king may be read as a personification of Israel/the community. See Petersen 1995: 58–59; Leske 2000. 47.  Cf. the construction of Judaism and Christianity after 70 b.c.e., and of Judaism in the light of the failure of Bar Kochba’s rebellion. From a completely different period and circumstances, compare the recreation of (white) Southern identity after the American civil war. See, for instance, Wilson 2009, Schivelbusch 2001: 37–101; and notice the contrast between the case of the American South with that of other national projects discussed in this volume, which despite national trauma and military defeat, and unlike the case of the American South, continued to be advanced.

A Balancing Act

125

How could the community approach and negotiate these matters within its discourse? As is well-known, conceptual tensions are often addressed in societies through shared narratives and metaphors that provide them with a “language” to deal with these issues. In our case, the most promising option was to rely on the shared conceptual fields of two constructions that held much mindshare and generated multiple sites of memory in the community: (a) the ‫ ברית‬between Yhwh and Israel and (b) the marriage between Yhwh and Israel, and particularly so because the concepts of ‫ ברית‬and marriage were clearly associated with one another within the social mindscape of the community (Mal 2:14; Prov 2:17). If the concept and social practice of ‫ ברית‬informed those of marriage, then, from the perspective of the community, the latter was likely to, at least partially and implicitly, inform the former. The community knew well that, in social practice, marriages could be dissolved and promises broken. They “knew” that marriages could be dissolved because of the fault of the bride(/Israel) or just because the husband(/Yhwh) desired so. But they tended to imagine marriage as enduring and hoped that the one between Yhwh and Israel would last or at least would be renewed. Just as they remembered Yhwh as knowing well ahead of time that Israel (/Jerusalem) could not but fail as Yhwh’s bride and was thus involved in a social practice that would normally be associated with lack of “good faith” in the performance of promises, they also remembered a Yhwh who will in the future change Israel so it would be able to succeed as Yhwh’s bride. But this metaphorical conceptual frame had its limits too. To illustrate, the community remembered that some divine promises were only partially fulfilled and others were from the outset for a limited time only (such as royal promises for a certain number of generations). None of these work well with the marriage metaphor. Even more importantly, this approach provided no discursive/imaginative tools to address crucial questions such as which divine promises were more or less likely to be broken. All in all the community construed and remembered promises as breakable, enduring, of short term value, fulfilled, partially fulfilled, not fulfilled, made in good faith and in bad faith. But if so, what can we learn about promises and particularly divine promises and their pragmatic value within the discourse of the community? Can we discern within this sort of discourse systemic patterns of preference and dispreference that may help us toward a reconstruction of which promises were more easily understood as breakable, which had to be seriously renegotiated and which, although conceptually were considered potentially breakable, were for all practical purposes imagined to be

126

Ehud Ben Zvi

unbreakable­or close to unbreakable? Was there a socially shared implied logic governing these matters and thus their pragmatic construction of promises and memories of promises? What does this logic, if it existed, tell us about the community?

Pragmatic Differentiation among Promises in Late Persian / Early Hellenistic Judah Because potentially all promises could be construed, negotiated, renegotiated and the like in the ways mentioned above, the governing logic is most likely not to be found in variances in the social practice of promising, or in the actual words of the remembered promises. After all, the wording was always influenced by rhetorical needs, and in any case, the same promise could have been reflected in and communicated by various texts, each with its own wording, or for that matter in a semantic attitude toward the meaning of obligation. The governing logic was more likely grounded in the question of the social cost for the community involved in the various constructions of remembered, core divine promises. For instance, the transtemporal Israel that the literati construed within their discourse and with which they identified could exist and was remembered as existing in the land and outside the land, with a Davidic king on the throne and without him, with a built Jerusalem and functioning temple and without it. The social memory that bonded the group together proved that to be the case. But this Israel could not exist without being imagined as Yhwh’s people/wife/son/ flock/etc. without divine instruction, without Jerusalem’s being construed as Yhwh’s wife/selected city/city at the center of the world. The latter required the existence of a divinely approved temple and worship, whether these existed as a shared mental image or as a built space in the “real” world, or both. Thus, promises associated with Yhwh’s choice of Israel, Jerusalem and divine instruction, irrelevant of the metaphor or the words involved, strongly tended to be pragmatically remembered as enduring and permanent. The cost of seriously and genuinely doubting whether these promises were or will be in effect in the future carried social and ideological costs too high for processes of shaping self-identity and social reproduction. Doubts of this sort would have raised a strong sense of existential anxiety about the future or identity of the community. 48 To be sure, a temple required legitimate priests and legitimate teachers (be they priests, prophets, both or none). These were construed as neces48.  Of course, the promise of progeny belongs to this category as well.

A Balancing Act

127

sary to communicate the divine instruction to the people. Thus, genuinely doubting the continuous existence of priests and teachers carried a very high cost. Surely, negotiating who was or will (or could) be a priest or legitimate teacher is another matter. Accordingly, the pragmatic meaning of the relevant remembered promises could be open for multiple interpretations, within limits: the very existence of priests and teachers could not be at risk. Unlike promises associated with Yhwh’s choice of Israel, Jerusalem and divine instruction, the promise of David was much negotiated. 49 On the one hand, this is consistent with the lower cost for the community of a genuine consideration of the possibility that the promise has been revoked. On the other hand, the fact that it was so saliently negotiated shows that the divine promise to David was a central site of memory and as such attracted to itself multiple interpretations, each encapsulating and communicating main “voices” interacting and complementing each other within the general discourse of the period. In fact, the divine promise to David became a site of memory/tool that facilitated communal thought and imagination about possible futures, the very character of Israel and the ways in which past, present, and future utopian Israel were continuous and discontinuous with each other. Perhaps this is why it was so much negotiated. 49.  To be sure, the community in the late Persian period remembered that monarchic Jerusalem and its temple were destroyed in the past and the people went into exile, a point hammered down time and again, directly and indirectly in the core repertoire of texts of the community. But this was not the point. The point was that the community neither construed nor remembered Yhwh’s choice of Jerusalem, Israel, and Torah as alterable or contingent on human behavior. In other words, the community did not seriously entertain, explore, or consider alternatives such as a resignifying Israel to mean non-Israelites, Jerusalem to mean a city other than Jerusalem, or a divinely ordained “Torah” different from the one they held to be Yhwh’s Torah. But it could explore whether the promise to David was rescinded or not; whether the promise may have been “democratize`d” or even partially “Persianized.”

Bibliography Avioz, M. 2012 The Davidic Covenant in 2 Samuel 7: Conditional or Unconditional? Pp. 43–53 in The Ancient Near East in the 12th–10th Centuries b.c. e.: Culture and History. Proceedings of the International Conference Held at the University of Haifa, 2–5 May, 2010, ed. G. Galil, A. Gilboa, A. M. Maeir, and D. Kahn. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 392. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.

128

Ehud Ben Zvi

Ben Zvi, E. 2003 Signs of Jonah: Reading and Rereading in Ancient Yehud. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement 367. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press and Continuum. 2004 Observations on Prophetic Characters, Prophetic Texts, Priests of Old, Persian Period Priests and Literati. Pp. 19–30 in The Priest in the Prophets. The Portrayal of the Priests, Prophets and Other Religious Specialists in the Latter Prophets, ed. L. L. Grabbe and A. O. Bellis. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 408. London: T. & T. Clark. 2006 History, Literature and Theology in the Book of Chronicles. London: Equinox. 2014 a The Yehudite Collection of Prophetic Books and Imperial Contexts. Pp. 145–69 in Divination, Politics and Ancient Near Eastern Empires, ed. J. Stökl and A. Lenzi. Ancient Near East Monographs 7. Atlanta: SBL. 2014 b Chronicles and Samuel–Kings: Two Interacting Aspects of One Memory System in the Late Persian/Early Hellenistic Period. Pp. 41–56 in Rereading the Relecture? The Question of (Post)chronistic Influence in the Latest Redactions of the Books of Samuel, ed. U. Becker and H. Bezzel. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2/66. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Boda, M. 2014 Gazing through the Cloud of Incense: Davidic and Temple Community in the Chronicler’s Perspective. In Chronicling the Chronicler: The Book of Chronicles and Early Second Temple Historiography, ed. T. Williams and P. Evans. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Goldingay, J. 2005 The Message of Isaiah 40–55: A Literary-Theological Commentary. London: T. & T. Clark. Gosse, B. 2011 Les Lévites, Jérémie et les Chroniques. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 123: 47–56. Knoppers, G. N. 2004 I Chronicles 1–9. AB 12. New York: Doubleday. Kutsch, E. 1997 ‫ברית‬. Pp. 256–66 in Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, ed. E. Jenni and C. Westermann. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Leske, A. M. 2000 Context and Meaning of Zechariah 9:9. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 62: 663–78. Leuchter, M. 2008 The Polemics of Exile in Jeremiah 26–45. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mason, S. D. 2008 “Eternal Covenant” in the Pentateuch: The Contours of an Elusive Phrase. Library of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 494. New York: T. & T. Clark. McKane, W. 1996 Jeremiah 26–52. International Critical Commentary. Edinburg: T. & T. Clark.

A Balancing Act

129

McKenzie, S. L. 2001 The Typology of the Davidic Covenant. Pp. 152–78 in The Land That I Will Show You: Essays on the History and Archaeology of the Ancient Near East in Honour of J. Maxwell Miller, ed. J. A. Dearman and M. P. Graham. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 363. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Petersen, D. L. 1995 Zechariah 9–14 and Malachi. OTL. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox. Polzin, R. 1993 Samuel and the Deuteronomist. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Rad, G. von 2001 Old Testament Theology, vol. 1: The Theology of Israel’s Historical Traditions, trans. D. M. G. Stalker, with an introduction by W. Brueggemann. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox. Römer, T. 2000 Du Temple au Livre: L’idéologie de la centralization dans l’historiographie deutéronomiste. Pp. 207–25 in Rethinking the Foundations: Historiography in the Ancient World and in the Bible, ed. T. Römer and S. L. McKen­ zie. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 294. Berlin: de Gruyter. Schenker, A. 2000 Jeroboam and the Division of the Kingdom in the Ancient Septuagint: LXX 3 Kingdoms 12.24 a–z, MT 1 Kings 11–12; 14 and the Deuteronomistic History. Pp. 214–57 in Israel Constructs Its History: Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent Research, ed. A. de Pury, T. Römer, and J.-D. Macchi. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 306. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Schivelbusch, W. 2001 The Culture of Defeat: On National Trauma, Mourning and Recovery. New York: Metropolitan Books. Schniedewind, W. M. 1999 Society and the Promise to David: The Reception History of 2 Samuel 7:1– 17. New York: Oxford University Press. Sheinman, H. 2011 Promises and Agreements: Philosophical Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wellhausen, J. 1957 Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel, trans. A. Menzies and J.  Sutherland Black. Cleveland: Meridian. Wilson, C. R. 2009 Baptized in Blood: The Religion of the Lost Cause 1865–1920. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press. Wilson, I. D. 2014 Joseph, Jehoiachin, and Cyrus: On Book Endings, Exoduses and Exiles, and Yehudite/Judean Social Remembering. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 126: 521–34.

From Covenant to Connubium Persian Period Developments in the Perception of Covenant in the Deuteronomistic History Cynthia Edenburg The Open University of Israel

For me, covenant is one of those terms in “biblical English” that evades precise definition. Like “terebinth,” it smacks of another distant time and place where strange trees grow and where relations in the social, political and theological sphere are defined by hazy, amorphous, ever changing terms. Within legal use, covenant designates a type of formal legally binding agreement, but this is only one aspect of the term as used in “biblical English,” while the German term Bund evokes other connotations, of a binding relationship. 1 Author’s note:  This paper was prepared during a stay as a visiting fellow at the Center for Advanced Study of the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München. I am grateful to Prof. Christoph Levin for the invitation and to the CAS for the facilities they provided during my stay. I am further indebted to the Research Authority of the Open University of Israel under whose auspices the paper was first presented at the 2012 SBL annual meeting. 1.  Despite the lack of historical differentiation throughout his study, it is worth noting Buchanan’s (2003: 27) incisive observations: Contracts and treaties do not exist all by themselves in a vacuum. They are legal concepts that are related to other legal concepts, such as legal agency . . . legal ceremonies . . . and legal requirements such as love and loyalty. The legal dimension of our faith has been overshadowed and overlooked by giving all of these legal treaties and contracts the 16th-century term covenant, which has seemed more mysterious than legal to 21st-century Christians and Jews. A covenant is a 16th-century English translation for an agreement that is established legally. . . . The same word (‫ )ברית‬was used for both contract and treaty, and the word covenant generally renders both usages in the King James and many other English translations of the Bible. Although Jews and Christians tend to think that somehow the word “covenant” has a special religious meaning that is not accurately fulfilled by either of the modern terms, the word “covenant” in the sixteenth century had all of the legal force of contract or treaty.

131

132

Cynthia Edenburg

In order to deal with the role of covenant in the Deuteronomistic History in the Persian period it is necessary to ask first: what do we mean by “covenant” in the Bible? Is “covenant” limited to the Hebrew term ‫?ברית‬ Or can we find reference to the covenant idea and ideology on the basis of a broader semantic field that includes: ‫שבועה‬, ‫אלה‬, ‫עדות‬, and perhaps other terms?  2 Or, perhaps it is enough to locate an allusion to a social or cultic custom that might have been associated somewhere and sometime with the ceremony in which the establishment of a covenant relationship was enacted or concluded? 3 Second, how did Persian period scribes understand or construe the concepts embodied in the English term “covenant”? Do we not risk obscuring the issue by employing a multifaceted term that might prove to be inappropriate to the subject of inquiry (so too, Lohfink, 1995; van den Eynde, 1999: 123)? Compare the markedly different definition offered by Elazar 1995: 1: Politically, a covenant involves a coming together (con-gregation) of basically equal humans who consent with one other through a morally binding pact supported by a transcendent power, establishing with the partners a new framework or setting them on the road to a new task that can only be dissolved by mutual agreement of all the parties to it. For Elazar (1995: 28–32), covenant is related to national law and constitutionalism, and is governed by moral, rather than legal premises. This approach is similar to that taken by Cross (1998: 3–21), who thought that biblical covenant originated as a means for forging “kinship” links between unrelated kinship groups. Cross held that covenant provided the basis for bringing together the individual kinship groups within the framework of an early egalitarian tribal league that held to a shared “covenant law” such as the Ten Commandments. Compare also McCarthy 1985: 54. 2. See Perlitt 1969: 2–3; McCarthy 1985: 59; Rüterswörden 1998; Veijola 2008: 45–47. Compare Schenker’s (2000: 73–76) objection to a facile identification between covenant and ‫ברית‬. See also Hugenberger’s (1994: 162–215) review of the research on the relationship between covenant, oath, and ‫ברית‬. The view that ‫ ברית‬primarily designates a binding oath, rather than contractual or treaty relations was advanced by Kutsch (1967, 1968, 1973) and adopted by Weinfeld (1970, 1973). However, Knoppers (1996) has convincingly argued that the so-called obligatory and promissory types of covenant implicitly involve mutual obligations that are more characteristic of contracts and treaties. See also Barr 1977. The fact that the term ‫ ברית‬is missing from the so-called covenant formulary on which scholars base much of “covenant theology” is a related matter that is beyond the scope of this study. It may further be questioned whether the formula “to be x to y” is not more properly an adoption or relation formula, rather than an expression of “covenant,” and compare Kutsch 1973: 146–49; Levin 1985: 113–31; Rendtorff 1995: 17–18, 40–48; van den Eynde 1999. 3.  McCarthy (1965: 239) indicates a wide variety of forms that create or express a covenantal relationship in the Bible. While these forms may imply some kind of contractual agreement (such as shaking of hands, an exchange of gifts, or an oath), they do not necessarily involve a treaty.

From Covenant to Connubium

133

All these questions relate to the methods one chooses to employ at the outset in investigating the history of a concept. A broad definition of covenant that combines different terms, motifs and customs may lead to maximalistic findings whereby the concept is found here, there and everywhere. On the other hand, a very narrow definition might blind one to changes in signification that occurred over time. The approach one takes to the source texts also plays a major role in determining results; a synchronic approach may shed light on the concept as readers of the final form of the text may have understood it, possibly in the third or second centuries B.C.E., but it will have limited relevance to uncovering the prior history of the concept. In the present case, the very title of this essay indicates something about my methodological assumptions. First, the concept of covenant underwent change and that only over time did the idea of connubial ties become related to the basic concept. Second, we can trace the impact of changes in historical and social circumstances on the conceptualization of covenant. Third, the Deuteronomistic History continued to undergo revision in the Persian period (and even later). Because the starting point of any historical enquiry must be a concrete historical context for understanding an idea, I propose that the Neo-­ Assyrian period provides the best context for understanding what the idea of covenant initially meant to Deuteronomistic scribes. Notwithstanding the criticism that some have raised against privileging the Neo-Assyrian oaths and treaties as the probable source for the ideas, structure, and language in Deuteronomy (e.g., Zehnder 2009a, 2009b), the Neo-Assyrian period still provides the most feasible historical and cultural context for the diffusion of these literary conventions that are so pronounced in Deuteronomy (Koch 2008: 266–323). Until the time of Tiglath-Pilesar III, the kingdom of Judah appears to have remained relatively isolated from international affairs, in contrast to its northern neighbor, the kingdom of Israel. The rapid expansion of Assyrian rule and influence undoubtedly had an impact on scribal education among the higher echelons of the administration, both within the vassal state of Judah and within the province of Samaria. 4 Whether or not copies of loyalty oaths and vassal treaties were deposited in the Jerusalem temple or elsewhere may be debated, but the periodic contacts between Judean and Assyrian officials undoubtedly left their mark and probably induced master scribes to introduce imported genres into the scribal curriculum (perhaps via an Aramean translation) 4. Compare, for example, the influence Assyria played in the diffusing of royal ideology that found expression in royal inscriptions in west Semitic kingdoms, and see Naʾaman 1998: 334–35; Green 2010; Edenburg 2010: 159–75.

134

Cynthia Edenburg

in order to prepare budding scribes for the role they might play in interchanges with Assyria. Surprisingly, the term ‫ ברית‬does not appear in the core section of Deuteronomy that is mostly attributed to the Neo-Assyrian period (Deut 12:1–28:45), despite the many expressions and ideas in this section that seem to derive from an Assyrian milieu. 5 However, the use of the term ‫ברית‬ in the basic layer of Samuel and Kings shows that the early Deuteronomist scribes viewed the term variously as the equivalent of treaty (1 Sam 11:1; 1 Kgs 5:26, 15:19; cf. 2 Kgs 16:7–9) and loyalty oath (1 Sam 18:3, 20:8; 2 Sam 3:12, 21, 5:3; 2 Kgs 11:4), and that they were cognizant of the original secular context of the concept (McCarthy 1972: 65–85; 1978: 18–21; Levin 1985: 122–27; cf. Römer 2005: 81–106 on the work of the early Deuteronomists). In the Babylonian period, the concept of ‫ ברית‬as treaty and loyalty oath was theologized in order to provide a powerful explanation for the disaster that befell the kingdom of Judah (Perlitt 1969: 129–55; Levin 1985: 118–27; Koch 2008: 250–65; cf. McCarthy 1978: 15, 290–93). Gods had always played a role in the political treaty and loyalty oath forms, but their role was that of a third party, that witnesses the oath and executes its sanctions. When the concept of ‫ ברית‬was theologized, Yhwh replaced the role of the earthly suzerain and became the primary side that initiates the treaty or oath. It seems most likely that this unprecedented development was motivated by the demise of the Judean monarchy. This reconceptualization comes to the fore in the complex paranetic framework of Deuteronomy, much of which presumes the exile and most likely derives from the Babylonian period. Here we find that the law corpus along with the blessings and curses are represented as a ‫ ברית‬that Yhwh established with Israel, his subject people (Deut 4:23, 5:2–3, 7:12, 28:69, 29:8, 11, 13, 20, 24). At this time, the Deuteronomistic History was composed to demonstrate how this divine treaty worked through history. Yhwh gave Israel their land and defeated their enemies, but the grant of land was contingent on the conditions of the divine treaty (Josh 23:16). Despite multiple infractions on the part of his people, Yhwh exercised restraint and adhered to the treaty. The kingdom of Israel was made to serve as a warning to Judah that Yhwh would ultimately make good on the treaty threats (2 Kgs 17:35, 38), and only after Judah did not learn from this precedent 5.  However, the term ‫ ברית‬does appear in the late redactional subscript to the body of laws, blessings, and curses in Deut 28:69 (“the words of the covenant ‫ ברית‬that Yhwh commanded Moses to make with the Israelites”); see Rose 1994: 547; Nielsen 1995: 256; Nelson 2002: 338–39.

From Covenant to Connubium

135

did Yhwh consider the treaty null and void (Koch 2008: 260–61). All the benefits Yhwh’s people enjoyed under the treaty are retracted; they lose their land and are they are sent away to dwell in a foreign land. The treaty form seems to imply that the relations between the two parties terminate when the subservient side violates its oath. This indeed is the tone of the new conclusion to the curses in Deut 28:62–68 that finds its fulfillment at the end of the Deuteronomistic History in 2 Kgs 25:21 (“And so Judah was exiled from its land”; Albertz 2003: 8–11). At the same time, it is unrealistic to suppose that this was the sole view of the divine covenant during the Babylonian period. One can imagine a dialectic interchange among the scribal community regarding the prospects for the future (Olyan 2008). Hopes for a future restoration may have inspired an additional development in the covenant idea in which the conditional treaty is reconfigured as a solemn unconditional oath that Yhwh had sworn to the ancient forefathers (see for example, Deut 7:7–9, 30:1–6; Jer 31:31–33, 32:40; Römer 1990: 569–71). Further developments occurred in the Persian period due to changes in the nature of the relations under Persian imperial rule, when Yehud was a province ruled directly by a Persian governor rather than a vassal state subject to a loyalty oath. While memories of the background of the international treaty and loyalty oath still remained fresh in the Babylonian period, in the Persian period they no longer seem relevant. Moreover, the Jerusalemite scribes responsible for literary production in the Persian period were undoubtedly active in local administration and thus were indirectly in the employ of the imperial rule (Kessler 2006). The various factors that contributed in the sixth and fifth centuries B.C.E. to the rise of Yhwh as a universal god also detracted from the suzerain–vassal metaphor behind the Deuteronomistic covenant ideology. Yhwh was viewed no longer as the overlord of Israel but as the universal king who rules the world and all peoples within it by means of his earthly viceroy, the Persian king, whose dominion embraced practically all the lands that would be known to a Jerusalemite scribe (cf. Isa 42:6; 45:1; 49:47–48; 54:10; 56:3–6; 61:8–9). The overriding concerns within Yehud also changed from those of the Assyrian period, when Judah was a tiny client state that had to maneuver diplomatically between the major powers. Persian-period Yehud was an imperial province ruled by a Persian appointed governor and its official cult apparently operated under imperial auspices, or at least with imperial sanction. Furthermore, the cult—or at least the veneration—of Yhwh was no longer restricted to the confines of Judah and Samaria, but was practiced by a Diaspora community in both the east (Babylon and Persia) and the west

136

Cynthia Edenburg

(Egypt; Kessler 2006). Within the new sociopolitical constellation there was no need for the ideological manipulation of covenant theology in order to subvert client status and bolster national identity because the Yhwh community now transcended state boundaries (McCarthy­1982: 32). New challenges were faced by the Yhwh communities in both Yehud and in the Diaspora. On the one hand, questions arose regarding the relations between the Diaspora community and the cult center in Jerusalem, as witnessed by Zech 7:1–3 and the Elephantine temple papyrus (P. Cowley 30 = TAD A4.7). The Diaspora community was also challenged to maintain its separate self-identity, and one of the means to perpetuate selfidentity was to safeguard lineage traditions. 6 On the other hand, the meeting between repatriated Judeans and the varied populace that remained in the Shephelah and the central hill country north and south of Jerusalem resulted in conflicting interests and claims. Repatriated Judeans who had preserved their lineage tradition undoubtedly viewed themselves as a privileged elite with full rights to the properties and privileges they had enjoyed prior to deportation. Their claims would have conflicted with those of the new local elite that had emerged in the meantime from among the remaining Judeans, Samarians who migrated south, Edomites who migrated into southern Judah, Ammonites who migrated west, and possibly other groups as well (McCarthy 1982: 35; Tadmor 1987; Talmon 1986: 179–88; Holmgren 1992: 252–54; Kessler, 2006). I propose that this background provided the impetus for reconstruing the idea of covenant in some of the texts received by Persian period scribes (cf. Taggar-Cohen 2005). The diplomatic aspect that had governed the Deuteronomistic metaphor for the relations between the divine overlord and his subject people moves far to the background, so that when covenant language is employed in instances such as Gen 9:9–17, 15:17–18; Isa 54:10, 61:8; Ps 106:45, 111:5; Ezra 10:3; Neh 9:8, it merely indicates a solemn oath or promise, rather than the type of contractual relations behind the treaty form and loyalty oath (McCarthy 1965: 235–39; 1982: 32–35; Sperling 1989: 50–73; Bautch 2008: 8). 7 At the same time, the diplomatic or treaty aspect that is the essence of earthly covenants or ‫ בריתות‬in the Deuteronomistic History also seems to have undergone 6.  Undoubtedly, the Diaspora communities absorbed by marriage new members from outside the original group of Judahite expatriates, and this situation might be reflected in the onomastics of personal names as well as in the Elephantine documents. Lineages, however, are frequently manipulated in order to absorb new groups and mask their different origin. 7.  See also and cf. Zech 11:10, in which all humankind replaces Israel as subject of the covenant relation.

From Covenant to Connubium

137

reformulation. Without sovereignty, there was no authority that could undertake the type of legally binding agreement that is basic to the political or international treaty form. 8 Furthermore, all of Judah’s neighbors in the Iron Age now were subsumed along with Yehud in the same province of Ebir Nari west of the Euphrates. These changes in the social and political make up of Persian period Yehud contributed to applying the concept of covenant to connubium and marital relations. In ancient Israel and Judah, as throughout the ancient Near East, marriage was a transaction that could be accompanied by a formal contract (and then, probably only among the prosperous elite; Roth 1989: 26). However, only the bridegroom and the bride’s father or brother were sides to the transaction and contract, while the bride was but the subject of the transaction. To be sure, all ancient Near Eastern law collections hold married women responsible to maintain marital fidelity and hold them culpable if they are found to have had consensual relations with another man. 9 But this is not because a woman has broken either an oath or a contractual obligation that she had taken on herself (Roth 1989: 1–15). Within this cultural-historical context, the obligations of fidelity and submissiveness incumbent on a wife are similar to those of a purchased slave or of an indentured minor. Neither the purchased slave nor the indentured minor can be said to have “entered into a covenant” with their masters, nor were they partner to the contracts to which they are subject. 10 In other words, it is by no means apparent that women entered into a “covenantal relationship” with their husbands in marriage. 11 This 8. Compare McCarthy’s (1982: 29–31) observation on role of the triad of king, prophet, and priest in covenant making in Chronicles. 9.  The purpose of ancient Near Eastern marriage transactions was to acquire sole rights to reproductivity of a wife in order to insure one’s lineage and attending patrilinear property rights. Accordingly, the subject of the marriage transaction or contract was not so much the acquisition of a wife as it was acquisition of sole rights to her sexuality (Pressler 1993: 81–94). 10.  Ben Zvi (2004: 370–74) characterizes the marital relation as a patron-client relationship in which the woman’s unwavering loyalty is expected, even without a formal oath or stipulations, because wrongdoing and infidelity on her part as the subordinate partner in the relation could bring shame to the patron. The demands of the subordinate were inculcated by means of socialization and education, and these means do not imply a formal covenant relationship. Compare also McCarthy (1978: 161 n. 6): “I do not think that mention of family relationships in, say, Dt need derive from treaty covenant thinking but rather that ancient family attitudes could and probably did reinforce attitudes the treaties sought to inculcate. They help explain and give weight to the treaty covenant’s demand that one love.” See also van den Eynde 2004: 410–11. 11. Ezek 16:8 does not gainsay this point. The entire discourse in Ezekiel is an extended metaphor for the relations between Yhwh and Judah as quickly becomes

138

Cynthia Edenburg

situation even seems to apply in Elephantine despite the prominent role women play in the various papyri. Consequently, I hold that the application of the idea of covenant or ‫ ברית‬to marital relations was a conceptual (or intellectual) innovation that was not grounded in the marital institution of the times. 12 I have argued previously that we may find a move in this direction in the composition of Deut 22:13–29 (Edenburg 2009). The laws regulating women’s sexuality that are included in this section were drawn from the well of ancient Near Eastern legal tradition, and perhaps were part of a prior literary collection dealing with family law. However, the selection of cases, their phrasing, and the structure of the section as a whole highlights the concerns of the Deuteronomistic scribe, who presented the uncompromising fidelity incumbent on women to maintain to their patrons (father, present husband or future spouse) along the same lines as the demand in Deut 13:2–18 to maintain exclusive fidelity to Yhwh. In fact, while Deut 17:2–3 employs political metaphors to express deliberate transference of allegiance from Yhwh to other gods, 13 Deut 13:2–19 envisions infidelity to Yhwh as resulting from incitement or enticement to stray, in a fashion similar to seduction (v. 7, ‫‘ הסית‬incite’; vv. 6, 14, ‫‘ הדיח‬entice to stray’). I suggested that the Deuteronomistic scribe drew a two-way analogy between marital fidelity and the fidelity due to the sovereign and he applied both to the nature of the relations Yhwh demanded of his people (Ben Zvi 2004: 370–71). The demand of total allegiance is shared by both marital and political metaphors, and infidelity can only be conceived as resulting from deliberation (as in adultery) or from enticement (as in seduction). In my opinion, the analogy that was drawn between the loyalty oath and the marital metaphor in this relatively late Deuteronomistic layer apparent­beginning with v. 26. If the mention of the foreign powers as lovers was not enough of a clue, v. 44 outrightly states that the metaphor of a broken marriage is a ‫משל‬, and the point is further driven home when the fictive wife’s older sister is identified with Samaria in v. 46. It is particularly instructive that apart from the single mention of ‫ ברית‬in the initial exposition (v. 8), the remaining instances of the term appear only in the didactic conclusion, in vv. 59–62 (Greenberg 1983: 277–78; Jüngling 1993: 129– 32; Reuter 2007: 171–77). The application of the term ‫ ברית‬to the marital metaphor in Ezekiel 16 was perhaps influenced by the political use of the term in the adjacent section, Ezek 17:13–16, 18–19. 12.  Smith (2008: 79) holds the opposite view, that “it is covenant/treaty, whether at the local level or on the international level, that is modeled on family in order to establish ties across family lines.” 13. Compare ‫“( לעבור ברית‬violate a treaty”), ‫“( עבד‬serve another sovereign,” e.g., 1 Sam 11:1; 1 Kgs 12:4; 2 Kgs 17:3, 24:1), ‫השתחו ל‬- (“make obeisance,” e.g., 1 Sam 24:9; 2 Sam 24:20; 1 Kgs 1:23).

From Covenant to Connubium

139

in Deuteronomy facilitated interpreting covenant as connubium in other late Deuteronomistic texts that betray the concerns of the Persian period (McCarthy 1965: 234–35). In the following, I shall discuss selected texts in which the concept of ‫ ברית‬has been reinterpreted within the framework of prohibiting connubium, or alternately, as a means of recognizing the special connubial status of groups within the “peoples of the land.”

Exodus 23:20–33, 34:10–16; Deuteronomy 7:1–6* In the first group of texts, we find that the injunctions not to worship the gods of the people of the land and not to enter into alliances with them, but to subject them to ‫חרם‬, have been overwritten with the prohibition of connubium that is now considered to be the very essence of alliance or ‫ברית‬. The passage in Exod 23:20–33 has been recognized by many as a Deuteronomistic conclusion to the Covenant Code (Perlitt 1969: 219–26). The two alternate openings in vv. 20, 27 probably indicate that this passage has a complex compositional history. In both parts of the section, it is possible to see that the Deuteronomistic ‫ חרם‬ideology has been softened and the injunction to annihilate the people of the land is replaced by Yhwh’s promise—either that his hornet will drive them out (vv. 28–30), or alternately that his messenger will wipe them out (v. 23). This revision of the ‫ חרם‬ideology is ultimately overwritten with the new injunction not to enter into an alliance or ‫ ברית‬with them and their gods, or to allow them (to remain) to dwell in the land (vv. 32–33). This injunction added at the end seems superfluous alongside the divine pledge to drive out and/or annihilate the “natives.” Here, I suggest that the addition is directed against connubium with the indigenous people. 14 Sitting or residing together implies the possibility of connubium, as is clearly stated in Judg 3:5–6 “The Israelites dwelt among the Canaanites . . . and married their (the Canaanites’) daughters and gave their own daughters in marriage to their (the Canaanites’) sons.” 15 The intention of Exod 23:32–33 14.  This holds true also for Judg 2:2–3 which in my opinion is best viewed as a negative reflection of Exod 34:11–16. In Judges 2, v. 2 seems to cite Exod 34:12a, 13a, while v. 3 presents the consequences based on Exod 34:11b, 12b. However, like Exod 23:20–33, Judg 2:1–5 makes no explicit mention of connubium. Because Judges does not report an alliance with the people of the land, Blum (2010a: 256–62) and Groß (2009: 163–66) think that Judg 2:2 might have the Gibeonite alliance in mind. However, this difficulty disappears if ‫ ברית‬here presumes connubium rather than “treaty.” 15.  Judg 3:4–6 is related to both Exod 23:27–32 and 34:11–16. Judg 3:4–6 appears to be a secondary interpretation or rewriting of 2:21–23. For this reason, it seems

140

Cynthia Edenburg

is to prohibit this by the broadening of the semantic field of ‫ ברית‬from the previous meanings of treaty, contract or loyalty oath to include alliance and connubium. The new message of this passage in Persian times recognizes that the non-Golah populace of Yehud was there to stay; while Yhwh might ultimately deliver the land wholly into the hands of the returnees, in the interim they must segregate themselves from the “natives,” which is best expressed by means of the prohibition of connubium. Exod 34:10–16 also displays Deuteronomistic language and influence (Perlitt 1969: 219–21). 16 This section that introduces the so-called “Privilegrecht” of Yhwh appears to be an interpretive rewriting of the entire complex that comes at the end of the Covenant Code in Exod 23:20–33 (Blum 1996: 359–61; Bar-On 1998: 185–93; Carr 2001). The responsibility for removing the indigenous people that had been transferred from Yhwh’s people to his agents (the messenger and/or the hornet) is now assumed by Yhwh himself. Moreover, the correlation between ‫ ברית‬and connubium that is implied by Exod 23:32–33 is now made explicit in 34:15–16: “Lest you make an alliance with the inhabitants of the land . . . and take their daughters for your sons.” In other words, Exod 34:15–16 interprets for the reader what type of alliance was earlier presumed by Exod 23:32–33. The juxtaposition between prohibition of alliance and connubium is also found in Deut 7:1–6. 17 This passage is closely related to Exod 23:20– 33, 34:10–16 and seems to represent a further development, or rewriting (Fishbane 1988: 200–203; Knoppers 1994: 129; Carr, 2001: 137; cf. Lohfink 1963: 172–80; Groß 2009: 166–77; Otto 2012: 855–57). The six indigenous nations in Exodus 23 and 34 (Exod 23:23, 34:11) now number “seven great nations” (Deut 7:1). 18 There is a further progressive more likely that Judg 3:4–6 draws on both of the related texts in Exodus 23, 34, rather than the opposite (cf. Bautch 2008: 10–11). 16.  Deuteronomistic idioms include: ‫( שמר את אשר אנכי מצוך‬v. 11); ‫( השמר לך‬v. 12); ‫ות ;שבר מצבות ;נתץ מזבחת‬/‫( כרת אשרים‬v. 13); (‫( זנה אחרי אלהים )אחרים‬v. 15). 17.  The Deuteronomistic parenesis in Deuteronomy 5–11 evidently has a complex compositional history, as shown by the loose association between and within the different sections. A catchword system seems to have been used to tack on new sections or introduce new paragraphs, and compare, for example: ‫ שמע‬in introductions (5:1, 6:4, 9:1); ‫מצוה‬, ‫חקים‬, ‫משפטים‬, ‫ עדות‬in introductions (e.g., 5:1, 6:1, 6:20, 7:12) and conclusions (6:24–25, 7:11); ‫ שמר לעשות‬in conclusions (5:32, 6:3, 7:11) and introductions (7:12, 8:1, 11:8); ‫ ארץ‬in introductions (6:10, 7:1) and conclusions (6:3); ‫ גוים‬in introductions (7:1, 17, 9:1) and conclusions (8:20); adjacent concluding ‫( עם‬7:6) and introductory ‫( עמים‬7:7). Accordingly, the use of these catchwords marks the final form of 7:1–6 as a separate section (Lohfink 1963: 102–4). 18.  But note that the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint have a full list of seven peoples including the Girgashites in Exod 34:11. This might also be reflected

From Covenant to Connubium

141

development in the injunction to eradicate the native cult; Exod 23:24 only mentions breaking stelae (‫)ושבר תשבר מצבתיהם‬, Exod 34:13 adds dismantling altars and uprooting sacred poles or trees (‫את־מזבחתם תתצון‬ ‫)ואת־מצבתם תשברון ואת־אשריו תכרתון‬, while Deut 7:5 further requires burning the divine statues (‫מזבחתיהם תתצו ומצבתם תשברו ואשריהם תגדעון‬ ‫)ופסיליהם תשרפון באש‬. Furthermore, the term used in Deut 7:5 for the divine images, ‫פסילים‬, is a pejorative form that seems to derive from late usage (cf. 2 Kgs 17:41; Isa 21:9, 42:8; Jer 51:47, 52; 2 Chr 33:22). Deut 7:1–6, however, combines two mutually exclusive themes: the ‫ חרם‬injunction (v. 2b) and the prohibition of connubium (vv. 3–4). Surely, there is no need to specifically prohibit intermarriage if the people of the land are to be annihilated (Schmitt 1970: 136–37; Knoppers 1994: 129; Nelson 2002: 98–99; contrast Otto 2012: 862). The prohibition of connubium is firmly anchored in its context because the prohibition at the beginning of v. 3 (“You shall not marry them”) finds its complementing antithesis at the incipit of v. 5 (“But this is what you shall do to them”). By contrast, the ‫חרם‬ stipulation in v. 2bα appears to be intrusive (Rose 1994: 331–41; Nielsen 1995: 94–97; Edenburg 2012: 122, 130; cf. Mayes 1981: 209–10). Given the close relationship between alliance and connubium that we previously observed in Exodus 23 and 34, I propose that prohibition in Deut 7:2bβ “do not make an alliance with them” is original to its context, and was naturally followed by the explicative “do not marry them” in v. 3. 19 In other words, here too, ‫ ברית‬is reinterpreted as alliance by connubium. Just as the ‫ חרם‬stipulation in Deut 20:16–18 revises the original rules of warfare, which provided for making peace treaties with peoples who capitulate, and demands instead the annihilation of the native populace, so too Deut 7:3–4 rejects the inclusive outlook of the early Deuteronomic rule permitting marriage with a captive girl (Deut 21:10–14) in favor of total separation from the people of the land. The three texts just examined “overwrite” the uncompromising ‫חרם‬ ideology of the Babylonian-period Deuteronomists that was directed against a fictive non-Yahwistic native populace. The fact that the group representing the indigenous “other” of the Persian period (the so-called “people of the land” or ‫ )עם הארץ‬was comprised of Yhwh worshipers in the Temple Scroll (11Q 19:3). Carr (2001: 120) thinks that the Qumran scribe may have worked with a consonantal text of Exodus that differs from the MT. 19.  I now think that the scribal interpolation in Deut 7:2 is limited to “Yhwh your God shall deliver them into your hand, you must surely eradicate them” (‫ונתנם ה’ אלהיך‬ ‫)לפניך והכיתם החרם תחרים אתם‬, while the final words “you shall not grant them quarter” (‫ )ולא תחנם‬are an erroneous aural variant of the opening of v. 3 ‫ולא תתחתן‬, “you shall not marry.”

142

Cynthia Edenburg

must have undermined the rationale for the utopian ‫ חרם‬ideology, which purported to safeguard Yhwh’s cult from contamination by the “native” practices. Accordingly, the new situation in Yehud required the former Diaspora Judeans to revise the ideological foundation regulating their relations with those who had continuously remained in the land. This move is reflected by texts that reflect Deuteronomistic themes and language but reformulate the exilic Deuteronomistic stance to fit the later changes in Persian period social reality. In these texts, the uncompromising ‫ חרם‬ideology of the Babylonian period Deuteronomists that called for an annihilation of the indigenous “people of the land” was replaced by the prohibition of connubium and by the utopian notion that Yhwh himself, rather than the people of Israel, would eventually dispossess and expel them. Instead of ‫ חרם‬ideology, the prohibition of alliance by intermarriage comes to the fore as a means of fostering group identity and of delegitimizing rival claims made by competing groups (Römer 2005: 170–71; cf. Blum 1996: 160–64).

Traces of Inclusivistic Use of “Covenant Language” in the Deuteronomistic History? Until now, the discussion here has focused on the ways late Deuteronomistic scribes reinterpreted the concept of ‫ ברית‬in order to proscribe connubium and reinforce an exclusionary identity within both Diaspora and returnee communities. Indeed, the exclusionists sound a loud chord in the literature of the Persian period, and they employ a good amount of Deuteronomistic idiom and concepts to further their program, but they are countered by other, more inclusivistic voices such as Trito-Isaiah (Isa 56:1–9, 60:10–15, 61:5–6), Ruth, and Chronicles. Is it possible that scribes of a more inclusivistic persuasion voiced their outlook by means of “covenant language” in late layers of the Deuteronomistic History? One passage that suggests itself as the story of the Gibeonite alliance in Joshua 9 in which the term ‫ ברית‬recurs five times (Josh 9:6–7, 11, 15–16). The use of the trickster motif is employed in this story to undermine the ‫ חרם‬ideology and to cast its devotees in a ridiculous light. The ideology that was intended to prevent contamination of Yahwism by contact with the cultic practices of the people of the land is subverted by the resolution of the story, in which the Gibeonites are appointed for life as cult servants at Yhwh’s sanctuary. This story does not address the subject of connubium—at least not openly, but any Persian period reader would be aware that Gibeon was part of the historical kingdom of Judah, and that the returnees included a contingent claiming Gibeon as their patrimony (Neh

From Covenant to Connubium

143

7:25). The only sense a reader of the period could make of all this would be to assume that the Gibeonite alliance in fact led to connubium and resulted in the complete absorption of the Gibeonites within Yhwh’s people. If so, then the use of covenant language in this story would be directed toward subverting the separatist program and prohibition of connubium. One last text that suggests itself within this context is the story of Rahab in Joshua 2 and its conclusion in Josh 6:22–25. This story disrupts the narrative continuity relating to the preparations to cross the Jordan and employs satire to undermine the conquest ideology. For these and other reasons, it is considered a piece of Persian period literature (Knauf 2008: 46–47; Haarmann 2008: 126–28; Blum 2010b: 220–25; Van Seters 1983: 331). The text makes abundant use of covenant vocabulary (′‫נשבע ל־[ ]בה‬ 2:12, 17, 20, 6:22; [ ] ‫ עשה חסד עם‬2:12 twice, 14) without employing the term ‫ ברית‬itself. This story is closely related to the story of the Gibeonites, because both supposedly deal with the relations between the invading Israelites who come to possess the land—and dispossess its inhabitants— and a small group of Yhwh fearing natives. Surprisingly, both Rahab and the Gibeonites know how to cite Scripture when presenting themselves as pious, Yhwh-fearing foreigners to the Israelites. The Gibeonites’ words in Josh 9:9–10 quote from 1 Kgs 8:41–42 and from Deut 3:8 (Edenburg 2012: 124), while Rahab’s words in Josh 2:9–11 additionally quote from the Song of the Sea (Exod 15:15b–16a) and Deut 4:39a (Blum 2010b: 225). In other words, the scribes who fashioned the figures of Rahab and the Gibeonites transparently placed scriptural citations in their mouths in order to depict them as literate scripture-quoting and Yhwh fearing natives. In both cases, fear of Yhwh motivates the natives to seek an alliance with the Israelites. Initially, Rahab’s alliance with the Israelites is based on mutual aid and loyalty; she harbored the spies and did not betray them to her people in return for the spies’ oath to extend protection to her entire kinship group. The conclusion of the story, however, points in the direction of connubium because all of Rahab’s clan supposedly dwelt afterwards among Israel “to this very day” (6:25). Dwelling together at least presents opportunities for connubium that undoubtedly would have been realized within the world of the narrative in order for the narrator to conclude that Rahab’s people count among Israel “to this very day” (so too, Blum 2010b: 223).

Conclusions In conclusion, the Neo-Assyrian inspired treaty framework for the Deuteronomic laws provided the Deuteronomist with the means for

144

Cynthia Edenburg

developing­the unifying theme of the Deuteronomistic History, according to which the history of Israel and Judah is the history of the contractual relationship between the national god and his people. Within the terms of the treaty, Yhwh’s people swore an oath binding all generations to serve Yhwh exclusively and to forsake all competing obligations. Within the milieu of the Babylonian period, the treaty or contractual framework provided the basis for understanding the destruction of the temple and the loss of political autonomy. With the transition to the Persian period, the changed circumstances in both the international sphere and within Yehud called for reinterpreting the covenant idea so that the Deuteronomistic History would be remain relevant to a contemporary audience. One of the means was to employ covenant terminology within texts reflecting the two sides of the polemic over the nature of the relations between the returnees from the Golah and the people who remained in the land. On one side, Deuteronomistic (or Dtr-influenced) scribes composed parenetic sections in Exodus and Deuteronomy in which they identified ‫ ברית‬with connubium in order to foster separatism and bolster an elitist identity. On the other side, we find texts that seem to have been produced by scribes who rejected the exclusivist program of the late Deuteronomists. These texts revolve around a recognition that the native inhabitants of Yehud do in fact revere Yhwh and as such are members of the Yhwh community. These scribes reflect the given situation, in which returnees and natives dwell together and share the same god and cult, and they are aware of the fact that the two groups shared kinship ties prior to the dislocation of the Judean elite following the Babylonian conquest. Their view of the reality of their times was translated into descriptions of alliances leading to connubium with Yhwh fearing Canaanites of the time of the conquest.

Bibliography Albertz, R. 2003 Israel in Exile: The History and Literature of the Sixth Century b.c. e. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Bar-On, S. 1998 The Festival Calendars in Exodus XXIII 14–19 and XXXIV 18–26. Vetus Testamentum 48: 161–95. Barr, J. 1977 Some Semantic Notes on the Covenant. Pp. 23–28 in Beiträge zur alttestamentlichen Theologie; Festschrift für Walther Zimmerli zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. H. Donner, R. Hanhart, and R. Smend. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Repr., pp. 164–77 in Bible and Interpretation: The Collected Essays of James Barr, vol. 2: Biblical Studies, ed. J. Barton. Oxford University Press, 2013.

From Covenant to Connubium

145

Bautch, R. J. 2008 The Function of Covenant across Ezra–Nehemiah. Pp. 8–24 in Unity and Disunity in Ezra–Nehemiah: Redaction, Rhetoric, and Reader, ed. M. J. Boda and P. L. Redditt. Hebrew Bible Monographs 17. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press. Ben Zvi, E. 2004 Observations on the Marital Metaphor of Yhwh and Israel in Its Ancient Israelite Context: General Considerations and Particular Images in Hosea 1.2. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 28: 363–84. Blum, E. 1996 Das sog. ‘Privilegrecht’ in Exodus 34,11–26: Ein Fixpunkt der Komposition des Exodusbuches? Pp. 347–66 in Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction, Reception, Interpretation, ed. M. Vervenne. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 126. Leuven: Leuven University Press and Peeters. 2010a Der kompositionelle Knoten am Übergang von Josua zu Richter: Ein Entflechtungsvorschlag. Pp. 249–80 in Textgestalt und Komposition exegetische Beiträge zu Tora und Vordere Propheten, ed. E. Blum and W. Oswald. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 69. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 2010b Beschneidung und Passa in Kanaan. Beobachtungen und Mutmaßungen zu Jos 5. Pp. 219–48 in Textgestalt und Komposition exegetische Beiträge zu Tora und Vordere Propheten, ed. E. Blum and W. Oswald. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 69. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Buchanan, G. W. 2003 The Covenant in Legal Context. Pp. 27–52 in The Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period, ed. J. C. R. de Roo and S. E. Porter. Supplement to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 71. Leiden: Brill. Carr, D. M. 2001 Method in Determination of Direction of Dependence. An Empirical Test of Criteria Applied to Exodus 34,11–26 and Its Parallels. Pp. 107– 40 in Gottes Volk am Sinai: Untersuchungen zu Ex 32–34 und Dtn 9–10, ed. M. Köckert and E. Blum. Veröffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie 18. Gütersloh: Chr. Kaiser and Gütersloher. Cross, F. M. 1998 From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Edenburg, C. 2009 Ideology and Social Context of the Deuteronomic Women’s Sex Laws (Deut 22:13–29). Journal of Biblical Literature 128: 43–60. 2010 David, the Great King, King of the Four Quarters: Structure and Signification in the Catalogue of David’s Conquests (2 Sam 8:1–14; 1 Chr 18:1–13). Pp. 159–75 in Raising Up a Faithful Exegete: Essays in Honor of Richard D. Nelson, ed. K. Noll and B. Schramm. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 2012 Joshua 9 and Deuteronomy: An Intertextual Conundrum. The Chicken or the Egg? Pp. 115–32 in Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch, Hexateuch, and the Deuteronomistic History, ed. K. Schmid and R. Person. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2/56. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

146

Cynthia Edenburg

Elazar, D. J. 1995 Covenant and Polity in Biblical Israel: Biblical Foundations and Jewish Expressions. New Brunswick: Transaction. Eynde, S. van den 1999 Covenant Formula and ‫ברית‬: The Links between a Hebrew Lexeme and a Biblical Concept. Old Testament Essays 12: 122–48. 2004 Between Rainbow and Reform: A Gender Analysis of the Term BRYT in the Hebrew Bible. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentlische Wissenschaft 116: 409–15. Fishbane, M. 1988 Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon. Green, D. J. 2010 “I Undertook Great Works”: The Ideology of Domestic Achievements in West Semitic Royal Inscriptions. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2/41. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Greenberg, M. 1983 Ezekiel 1–20. Anchor Bible 22. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Groß, W. 2009 Richter. Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament. Freiburg: Herder. Haarmann, V. 2008 Jhwh-Verehrer der Völker: Die Hinwendung von nichtisraeliten zum Gott Israels in alttestamentlichen Überlieferungen. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 91. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich. Holmgren, F. C. 1992 Faithful Abraham and the ʾamānâ Covenant Nehemiah 9,6 – 10,1. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentlische Wissenschaft 104: 249–54. Hugenberger, G. P. 1994 Marriage as a Covenant: A Study of Biblical Law and Ethics Governing Marriage Developed from the Perspective of Malachi. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 52. Leiden: Brill. Jüngling, H.-W. 1993 Eid und Bund in Ez 16–17. Pp. 113–48 in Der Neue Bund im Alten Studien zur Bundestheologie der beiden Testamente, ed. E. Zenger. Quaestiones disputatae 146. Freiburg: Herder. Kessler, J. 2006 Persia’s Loyal Yahwists: Power Identity and Ethnicity in Achaemenid Yehud. Pp. 91–121 in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period, ed. O. Lipschitz and M. Oeming. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Knauf, E. A. 2008 Josua. Zürcher Bibelkommentare 6. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag. Knoppers, G. 1994 Sex, Religion, and Politics: the Deuteronomist on Intermarriage. Hebrew Annual Review 14: 121–41. 1996 Ancient Near Eastern Royal Grants and the Davidic Covenant. Journal of the American Oriental Society 116: 670–97.

From Covenant to Connubium

147

Koch, C. 2008 Vertrag, Treueid und Bund. Studien zur Rezeption des altorientalischen Vertragsrechts im Deuteronomium und zur Ausbildung der Bundestheologie im Alten Testament. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentlische Wissenschaft 383. Berlin: de Gruyter. Kutsch, E. 1967 Gesetz und Gnade: Probleme des alttestamentlichen Bundesbegriffs. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentlische Wissenschaft 79: 18–35. 1968 Von ‫ ברית‬zu “Bund”: Kerygma und Dogma 14: 159–82. 1973 Verheißung und Gesetz: Untersuchungen zum sogenannten “Bund” im Alten Testament. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentlische Wissenschaft 131. Berlin: de Gruyter. Levin, C. 1985 Die Verheissung des neuen Bundes in ihren theologiegeschichtlichen Zusammenhang ausgelegt. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 137. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Lohfink, N. 1963 Das Hauptgebot: Eine Untersuchung literarischer Einleitungsfragen zu Dtn 5–11. Analecta Biblica 20. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. 1995 Bund als Vertrag im Deuteronomium. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentlische Wissenschaft 107: 215–39. Mayes, A. D. H. 1981 Deuteronomy 4 and the Literary Criticism of Deuteronomy. Journal of Biblical Literature 100: 23–51. McCarthy, D. J. 1965 Covenant in the Old Testament: The Present State of Inquiry. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 27: 217–40. 1972 Berît and Covenant in the Deuteronomistic History. Pp. 65–85 in Studies in the Religion of Ancient Israel. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 23. Leiden: Brill. 1978 Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents and in the Old Testament. Rev. ed. Analecta Biblica 21A. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. 1982 Covenant and Law in Chronicles–Nehemiah. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 44: 25–44. 1985 Covenant Relationships. Pp. 54–66 in Institution and Narrative: Collected Essays. Analecta Biblica 105. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Naʾaman, N. 1998 Royal Inscriptions and the Histories of Joash and Ahaz, Kings of Judah, Vetus Testamentum 48: 333–49. Nelson, R. D. 2002 Deuteronomy: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. Nielsen, E. 1995 Deuteronomium. Handbuch zum Alten Testament. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

148

Cynthia Edenburg

Olyan, S. M. 2008 The Status of Covenant during the Exile. Pp. 333–44 in Berührungspunkte: Studien zur Sozial- und Religionsgeschichte Israels und seiner Umwelt. Festschrift für Rainer Albertz zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, ed. I. Kottsieper et al. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 350. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Otto, E. 2012 Deuteronomium 1–11, Zweiter Teilband: 4, 44–11, 32. Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament. Freiburg: Herder. Perlitt, L. 1969 Bundestheologie im Alten Testament. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 36. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Pressler, C. 1993 The View of Women Found in the Deuteronomic Family Laws. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentlische Wissenschaft 216. Berlin: de Gruyter. Rendtorff, R. 1995 Die “Bundesformel”: Eine exegetisch-theologische Untersuchung. Stutt­ garter Bibelstudien 160. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. Reuter, E. 2007 Kein Bund für Frauen. Ehebund als eine sexistische Beschreibung der Gottesbeziehung. Pp. 171–77 in Für immer verbündet: Studien zur Bundestheologie der Bibel, ed. C. Dohmen and C. Frevel. Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 211. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. Römer, T. 1990 Israels Vater: Untersuchungen zur Vaterthematik im Deuteronomium und in der Deuteronomistischen Tradition. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 99. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag. 2005 The So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Historical and Literary Introduction. London: T. & T. Clark. Rose, M. 1994 5. Mose. Teilband 2– Mose 1–11 und 26–34: Rahmenstücke zum Gesetzeskorpus. Zürcher Bibelkommentare 5/2. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag. Roth, M. T. 1989 Babylonian Marriage Agreements, 7th–3rd Centuries b.c. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 222. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag / Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker. Rüterswörden, U. 1998 Bundestheologie ohne ‫ברית‬. Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 4: 85–99. Schenker, A. 2000 L’origine de l’idée d’une alliance entre Dieu et Israël dans l’Ancien Testament. Pp. 67–76 in Recht und Kult im Alten Testament: Achtzehn Studien. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 172. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

From Covenant to Connubium

149

Schmitt, G. 1970 Du sollst keinen Frieden schliessen mit den Bewohnern des Landes: Die Weisungen gegen die Kanaanäer in Israels Geschichte und Geschichts­ schreibung. Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament 91. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Smith, M. 2008 God in Translation: Deities in Cross-Cultural Discourse in the Biblical World. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Sperling, S. D. 1989 Rethinking Covenant in the Late Biblical Books. Biblica 70:50–73. Tadmor, H. 1987 The Origins of Israel as Seen in the Exilic and Post-exilic Ages. Pp. 15– 27 in Le Origini di Israele. Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Taggar-Cohen, A. 2005 The Covenant as Contract: Joshua 24 and the Legal Aramaic Texts from Elephantine. Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 11: 27–50. Talmon, S. 1986 The Emergence of Jewish Sectarianism. Pp. 165–201 in King, Cult and Calendar in Ancient Israel. Jerusalem: Magnes. Van Seters, J. 1983 In Search of History. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Veijola, T. 2008 Bundestheologie in Dtn 10,12–11,30. Pp. 31–47 in Leben nach der Weisung: Exegetisch-historische Studien zum Alten Testament, ed. W. Diet­ rich. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 224. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Weinfeld, M. 1970 The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East. Journal of the American Oriental Society 90: 184–203. 1973 Covenant Terminology in the Ancient Near East and Its Influence on the West. Journal of the American Oriental Society 93: 190–99. Zehnder, M. 2009a Building on Stone? Deuteronomy and Esarhaddon’s Loyalty Oaths: Some Preliminary Observations. Bulletin for Biblical Research 19: 341–74. 2009b Building on Stone? Deuteronomy and Esarhaddon’s Loyalty Oaths: Some Additional Observations. Bulletin for Biblical Research 19: 511–35.

The Covenant in the Book of Jeremiah On the Employment of Family and Political Metaphors Dalit Rom-Shiloni Tel Aviv University

Introduction While scholars tend to find Jeremiah’s “new covenant” a prophecy of major importance within exilic and postexilic Judean theology, D. N. Freedman concluded his influential paper “Divine Commitment and Human Obligation” (1964) with these words: In the history of postexilic times, the “new covenant” remained a future hope. The return of the exiles initiated a struggle to renew the old pattern, based upon the divine promise of a viable community life. The structure of national life was modeled on the Mosaic Covenant, with its demands, its promises, its threats. . . . the community remained under­the threat of final destruction through failure to fulfill its covenant obligations.

Freedman, thus, pointed out the restricted influence of the “new covenant” during the Persian period (and during the Second Temple period in general). 1 As a contribution to this volume on covenant in the Persian period, this essay focuses on Jeremiah’s conceptions of the God-people covenant relationship. Thus, time-wise, the present study explores texts that presumably were composed during the Neo-Babylonian period. 2 The question I Author’s note: This essay was supported by the Israel Science Foundation (grant no. 148/09). 1.  On the influence of Jeremiah’s “new covenant” on exilic and postexilic prophetic literature, see Bautch 2009: 32–42. On the significance of the “new covenant” in Qumranic and other early Jewish texts, as also in early Christianity, see Lundbom 2004: 472–82. 2.  I thus accept the scholarly position that locates most of the literary evolution of the book of Jeremiah in the Exilic and early Postexilic Periods, still within the sixth century B.C.E. See, among others, Nicholson 1970: 117; and Seitz 1989: 211–13, 228–35.

153

154

Dalit Rom-Shiloni

would like to address is: what was the spectrum of covenant conceptions at that crucial time of destruction and early exile? Clarification of this question will enable us to reevaluate five diverse perceptions in Jeremiah on the present and future of the God-people covenant relationship. My main goal is to show that the “new covenant,” like all other references to covenant in Jeremiah, is a product of the thoughtful theological selection of one option over another.

Metaphoric Worlds in Conceptions of the Covenant The covenant serves the biblical authors as the major metaphorical framework within which to portray the God-people relationship. In his paper “The Metaphorical Mapping of God in the Hebrew Bible,” M. Z. Brettler (1999: 221) makes valuable observations about biblical God-talk, when he argues that “most of the talk about Yhwh in the Bible is metaphorical”; thus, he suggests that we utilize “the metaphoric approach to the understanding of the deity of the Hebrew Bible.” One of the most intriguing and charming (if I may use this word) characteristics of the metaphor is its vitality. To quote Brettler (1999: 223), “If a metaphor is alive, the author gives it particular meaning by using it in a particular way in a particular context.” Thus, metaphors hold as many “associated commonplaces” (p. 224) as the biblical authors may draw on to use in specific situations; or in Brettler’s words (p. 228): “We must remember that the metaphor in the broad sense functions as a storehouse of entailments, only some of which will be adduced in particular contexts as appropriate.” I would like to pick up on that rich treasure trove of metaphors for God, which indeed illustrate biblical concepts of the divine, by adding another dimension to the theological discussion. In what follows, I argue that particular circumstances may lead to choosing or avoiding particular metaphors for God. Thus, this choice indeed mirrors contemporaneous (ancient) conceptions of God in his interaction with his people, an interaction that is illustrated by diverse metaphors of covenant. 3 By the early sixth century B.C.E. three metaphoric systems portray the God-people relationship: the political metaphor on the one hand, and the marital and adoption metaphors on the other. 4 The three originated 3.  Traditionally, the notion of covenant has been considered either as a theological idea (from Wellhausen to Nicholson) or studied from a more sociological orientation (developed first by Max Weber and subsequently by Martin Noth with the amphictyony assumption); see Nicholson 1986: 3–117. Understanding covenant as a metaphor allows a third alternative for explaining the covenant theme in the Bible. 4.  The relationship between the political and familial metaphors is usually presented as an intrusion of elements from the family sphere, mostly from the family laws,

The Covenant in the Book of Jeremiah

155

in distinct metaphoric milieux—the international-political arena and the world of the family—but they are all based on the root metaphor of God as king (see Ezek 16:13–14). 5 The significant difference between them lies in the representation of the divine. While the political metaphor illustrates God as king and the people as his subjects, the family metaphors picture God as father and husband. 6 In sources of the sixth century B.C.E., each of these metaphoric worlds functions as a complete, independent, and interchangeable system that includes references to the institution of the covenant, to the commitments of the two participating sides, to its violation, to the judgment on evildoers, and to the option of ultimately reinstituting or annulling the covenant between God and his people. 7

The Political Metaphor in Jeremiah The political metaphor is by far the prominent covenant metaphor in Jeremiah. The discussion here is limited to three components of the prophet’s metaphoric utilizations of the political covenant transferred to into the diplomatic language and into the literary type of the political covenant. See, for instance, the use of family metaphors within ancient Near Eastern treaty literature of the second and the first millennia B.C.E.: the sovereign treaty is called abbūtum (“fatherhood”), the vassal treaty is mārūtum (“sonship”), and a treaty between equals is aḫḫūtum (“brotherhood”). For the usage of adoption laws in diplomatic language, see Paul 1979–80: 173–85. Accordingly, Weinfeld explained a number of features of the covenant concept in terms of family-like language (1992: 77–81): the use of the twosided covenant formula (as in, “You may be my people and I may be your God,” Jer 11:4), the definition of obedience to the covenant uses terms taken from the semantic field of love (such as the verbs ‫בחר‬, ‫אהב‬, and ‫)חשק‬, and designations of its violation in terms taken from the semantic field of hatred and desertion (such as ‫בגד‬, ‫מאס‬, ‫זנח‬, and ‫)שנא‬. 5. Thus, Brettler 1999: 226. The metaphor of God as king uses the symbols of kingship, the roles of the sovereign (ruler, warrior, and judge), and, though less frequently, the title melek (or the verb malak); see Eissfeldt 1928: 81–105. For a discussion of the king as a root metaphor, see Mettinger 1987: 1–11, 92–122; and Brettler 1989: 26, 162–64. 6.  Thompson distinguishes the treaty from the “marriage analogy” and “the father-­son analogy” and notes that all of these relationships are contractual (1980: 59–67, esp. p. 66). 7. To illustrate: Ezekiel manipulates these metaphoric worlds to present different attitudes toward the two Judahite communities, the Jehoiachin exiles on the one hand, and those who remained in Jerusalem under Zedekiah on the other; see RomShiloni (2005: 1–45; 2013: 156–69). Jeremiah does not seem to make such sociological distinctions between the Judahite communities. Rather, he treats the entire people as engaged in a relationship with God but employs differently each of these metaphoric systems to describe the nature of this relationship and its future, and Jeremiah’s approach is dealt with below.

156

Dalit Rom-Shiloni

the theological sphere: institution of the covenant, commitment to it, and responsibility for its violation. The covenant was constituted at the divine initiative. 8 The point of departure for Jer 34:8–22, for instance, is the covenant relationship renewed by Zedekiah in the early sixth century B.C.E. and currently in effect: “The word which came to Jeremiah from the Lord after King Zedekiah had made a covenant with all the people in Jerusalem (‫אחרי כרת המלך‬ ‫ )צדקיהו ברית את כל העם אשר בירושלים‬to proclaim a release among them” vv. 8–11). This contemporary occasion evokes the earlier Mosaic covenant with the fathers (“I made a covenant with your fathers saying”; ‫אנכי כרתי‬ ‫ ;ברית את אבותיכם‬vv. 12–14). 9 The constitutive event. In several prophecies, a specific event reflecting on the Mosaic covenant follows a divine initiative (Jer 11:10; 34:13), during which God obligated the people to himself through “the words/ terms of the covenant” (11:2, etc.). However, Jeremiah does not mention Sinai (Exodus 19–20) or Horeb (Deut 1:6; 4:10; etc.). Rather, repeatedly the constitutive event was “on the day (when) I delivered them from Egypt,” that is, the Exodus (not the desert theophany): ‫ביום הוציאי אותם‬ ‫( מארץ מצרים‬so also Jer 7:22; 11:4; 34:13); or ‫ביום העלותי אותם מארץ מצרים‬ (in 11:7); and ‫( ביום החזיקי בידם להוציאם מארץ מצרים‬in 31:32). The phrase ‫ ביום‬+ infinitive construct designates time in a general fashion (as in Gen 2:4; and also, looking to the future, Isa 14:3) and thus may indeed be translated “when.” However, often this construction serves in reference to 8.  This sovereign initiative characterizes the two types of covenants known from Hittite and Neo-Assyrian political sources, the sovereign-vassal treaty and the grant. Both types were transferred in the Hebrew Bible to the theological sphere, to the Godpeople relationship. The former serves as the model for the Mosaic (Sinai) covenant; the latter characterizes the covenants with Noah, Abraham, Aaron, and David. See Weinfeld (1970: 184–96; 1975: 253–79); and see n. 14 below. 9.  Freedman emphasized the divine initiative as typical of all of the covenant traditions (1964: 420). On the sacral ceremonial background of the covenant in the presence of God, see Haran (2003: 99–154). The expressions ‫ כרת ברית‬and ‫הקים ברית‬ illustrate both these features: ‫ כרת ברית‬designates this divine initiative through its first person singular (Jer 34:13; and see 31:33) with God as agent, in the covenant with Abraham (Gen 15:18; Neh 9:8); the Sinai covenant (Exod 34:10, 27; and Deut 5:2, 3; 28:69); the Moab covenant (Deut 29:13); the covenant with David (2 Chr 21:7); the future God-people covenant (Hos 2:20; Isa 61:8); as also reflecting on the earlier covenant with “the sons of Jacob” (2 Kgs 17:35, 38). ‫ הקים ברית‬in Priestly passages (Gen 9:11; 17:7, 19, 21; Exod 6:4; Lev 26:9) and in Ezekiel (16:62) designates a divine act of establishing a covenant. Only once it refers to maintaining a long-established covenant relationship (Deut 8:18); and in this latter meaning, ‫ הקים ברית‬in Jer 34:18 serves as a human deed.

The Covenant in the Book of Jeremiah

157

a specific event in the past or in the future. 10 The usage that may be most significant to Jeremiah’s phrasing of “the day of the Exodus” in the context of the covenant is within Priestly references. ‫ ביום‬+ infinitive construct designates specific ritual occasions (Lev 3:14; Num 28:26; and see Ezek 44:27) and reflections on specific events of the Exodus and the desert wanderings that serve as precedents to cultic regulations (e.g., Num 3:13: ‫ ;ביום הכתי כל בכור בארץ מצרים הקדשתי לי כל בכור בישראל‬and see Num 8:17; 9:16). 11 Jeremiah’s insistence on “the day of the Exodus” seems to follow this last structure that memorizes the salvation event in specific cultic contexts. The prophet thus suggests an alternative to the Sinai/Horeb tradition by drawing the institution of covenant relationship to the very event of the Exodus deliverance. For an elaborate discussion of this formula in Jeremiah, see the forthcoming article by Rom-Shiloni. The people’s obligations to the covenant are reflected in judgment prophecies and exhortations in both poetry and prose passages throughout the book of Jeremiah. The focus on the people’s duties accords with the form of Neo-Assyrian treaties, where the sovereign’s commitments to the covenant are either completely absent or hardly explicit in contradistinction to the clear obligations required from the vassal(s). 12 In the biblical literature, and Jeremiah expressly, the commitments to the covenant are divided by genre, so that the people’s obligations govern the judgment prophecies, whereas the divine commitments are reserved for prophecies of consolation. 13 10.  For specific events in the past, see e.g., Josh 10:12; 14:11; 2 Sam 11:12; 1 Kgs 2:8; Obadiah 11, 12; the future: e.g., Ezek 38:18; Zeph 3:8; and similarly in the merismatic formula ‫( עד)ו( מיום‬1 Sam 29:3, 6; 2 Sam 7:6; 19:25). 11.  Cf. Deut 16:3, which invokes the exodus as an explanation for the Passover law: ‫ ;למען תזכר את יום צאתך מארץ מצרים כל ימי חייך‬and allusions to the Horeb in Deut 4:10; and see the exodus in reference to the God-people relationship in 2 Sam 7:6; 2 Chr 6:5. 12. See Parpola and Watanabe 1988: xiv–xv; and see Mendenhall 1954: 50–76; and Weinfeld 1992: 68, 70–74. 13.  Within the political metaphoric framework, the distinction between the (mostly implicit) divine commitments and the explicit people’s obligations has been one of the distinctive markers between the two types of covenants, the treaty and the grant. See Weinfeld 1970: 185, 189; Freedman and Miano 2003; 7–26; as also Bautch 2009:26– 37 and passim. In two detailed discussions, Knoppers (1996: 670–97; 1998: 91–118) criticized the option to draw parallels between land grants and the Davidic covenant (or rather only “promises,” 1996: 695), challenging the assumed unconditional nature of the grant in its Mesopotamian contexts (1996: 686–92), the nature of the treaty as a unilateral oath imposed on the vassal (1996: 693–94), and the diverse biblical evidence concerning the promises to David (1996: 694–96; and elaborately, 1998: 91–118). Nevertheless, the appearance of distinct features in each of the prophetic genres within Jeremiah (the judgment versus consolation prophecies) prove positively the basic­

158

Dalit Rom-Shiloni

As a further illustration, in Jer 34:8–22 the release of slaves is used as a miniature paradigm for obedience to God’s demands by Zedekiah and his generation in distinction from the disobedience of their ancestors (vv. 14b–15); but then reenslavement becomes an example of the present rebellion against God, leading to the unavoidable consequence of annihilation (vv. 17–22). This use of the manumission law of the Hebrew slave demonstrates the role legal pentateuchal sources have played in Jeremiah’s covenant conception. The torah, that is, specific divine commandments, serve Jeremiah here and throughout as a treasury of examples for the divine requirement of the people’s obedience and usually define the people’s disobedience toward God. This technique serves the prophet’s overarching intention to lay full responsibility for breach of the covenant on the people. 14 Responsibility for violation of the covenant is commonly expressed in the clear division constructed by the prophet between God who commands the covenant and the people who violate it. Two phrases mark this division: ‫( עבר ברית‬in 34:18), and the more common phrase ‫( הפר ברית‬in 11:10; 31:32; as also 33:20, 21); a third phrase, ‫עזב ברית‬, serves as an answer to the nations (22:9). This is a crucial difference between the prophet’s words and contemporaneous voices in poetry or in quotations within prophetic texts, in which God is portrayed as the one who has withdrawn or even violated the covenant (see Jer 14:21; Ps 74:20). 15 To summarize, the political metaphor validates the prophet’s conception of God and guides his argument that during the destruction of Jerusalem God had functioned properly (as any political sovereign), who merely reacted to covenant violations perpetrated by the people, his subjects, and punished them. The political covenant metaphor, thus, holds a special position in Jeremiah’s theodicy. The urge to justify God motivates Jeremiah to announce repeatedly that the people have violated the covenant, and to specify the people’s sins in terminology such as that of the political covenant. The political metaphor is a viable format for retaining the divine freedom of action with regard to the God-people relationship. But, similarly, it challenges the present and future role of God as covenant initiator, raising questions such as these: In face of this judgment of destruction and difference­between two types of hierarchical covenantal relationships on the basis of the commitments taken by (or imposed on) each side in either the treaty or the grant. 14.  For the use of pentateuchal legal traditions in Jeremiah, see Rom-Shiloni 2007: 79–85; 2009: 254–81, esp. pp. 257–61, 267–71. 15.  The demand for obedience and occurrences of disobedience hold pride of place in the political treaties; see Parpola and Watanabe (1988: xxxv, xxxviii–xli).

The Covenant in the Book of Jeremiah

159

exile, has the covenant been terminated by the people’s misconduct? Will God recommit himself to his people in another covenant relationship? What will be the nature of that covenant’s reinstatement?

Five Prophetic Perspectives on the Covenant in Jeremiah S. M. Olyan has reconstructed “an intra-communal debate” over the status of the covenant, alternating between five “rejectionist” and “antirejectionist” positions found throughout the sixth century B.C.E biblical literature (2008: 342–43). (1) Covenant continuity is asserted by authors who invoke either the Sinai covenant (Isa 54:7–8), the patriarchal one (Gen 17:7–8), or the covenants with David and Levi (Jer 33:17–18, 19–22; lacking in the Septuagint). They counter a (2) “rejectionist position,” which Olyan considers “agnostic,” as these speakers raise doubts about the covenant, saying that God has rejected the people (Jer 14:19, 21). Thus, the major debate runs between these two “anti-rejectionist” and “rejectionist” positions. Olyan adds two other “anti-rejectionist” positions to the mix. (3) “More innovative” (according to Olyan) are those who predict restoration or reinstitution of the covenant relationship, even as they nevertheless acknowledge a temporary divine rejection (Isa 14:1; Jer 31:31–34; Zech 1:17; 2:16). (4) Another “anti-rejectionist” position emphasizes the readoption of the people (Jer 30:22; 31:1, 33; 32:38; Ezek 36:28), while implicitly admitting that the original covenant had terminated. Finally, (5) Olyan adduces texts that find repentance and the confession of sins to be essential ingredients for validation of the original covenant (Lev 26:40a, 41, 43; Deut 4:29–31; 30:1–10). Olyan’s observations on these five positions are of great importance to the present discussion, as they provide access to more broadly ranging sixth-century B.C.E. theological deliberations. In his wide-angle perspective, Olyan touches on several antagonistic positions within the book of Jeremiah itself, yet it seems that he does not exhaust the rich deliberations on the covenant, which this book indeed exposes. Two dimensions ought to be added to those of Olyan. First and foremost is the formal dimension, that is, the metaphoric frameworks within which the God-people covenant relationship are expressed. In particular, the family metaphors should enter the discussion, and their specific and exceptional perspectives should be compared with that of the political metaphorical framework that more commonly serves in this task in Jeremiah. A second dimension is chronological. The God-people relationship is set on the axis of time, tracing its past, referring to or rather neglecting its present, and projecting its future. While judgment prophecies are the

160

Dalit Rom-Shiloni

context for observing the covenant from its constitution to its present violation, exhortations and prophecies of consolation are the framework in which the contemporary state and the future fate of the covenant are examined. As presented by Olyan, Jeremiah’s covenant perceptions are part of a fairly synchronic deliberation among Judeans (and only subsequently did they also serve in the diachronic process of the book’s evolution within the sixth century B.C.E.). On the eve of destruction (and in its aftermath) this framing of the God-people relationship has heightened the people’s fears and elevated doubt and protest; this political distress has brought Jeremiah to the need to justify God and refute antagonistic positions current in Jerusalem and in Babylon. 16 This seems to be the context of five arguments of prophetic refutation against non-prophetic challenges to the God-people relationship within the book of Jeremiah. Four of these arguments may reasonably be connected with the prophet himself (1, 2, 4, and 5 below), and one (3) seems to be non-Jeremian. All five articulate the prospects for the present and the future of the covenant relationship between God and the people in the wake of destruction and exile. 1.  Despite all doubts, the covenant endures (Jer 31:35–36, 37; 33:17–18, 19–22, 23–26). 2.  The covenant has been temporarily suspended, but will be reinstituted as a “new covenant” (Jer 31:31–34). 3.  The covenant has been temporarily suspended, but will be reinstituted with the Exiles (and only with them) upon their return (Jeremiah 24; 32:36–41). 4.  The covenant relationship has indeed been terminated. This exceptional announcement is illustrated through the marital metaphor (Jeremiah 2–3, and especially 3:1–5). 5.  Yet it may be possible to reestablish familial relationships of adoption (Jer 3:19–25).

The first three prophetic proclamations are all illustrations of the political metaphor utilized by the prophet and his followers. Each “works” with the two basic covenant models, the treaty and the grant, to suggest the current state and mostly the future prospects of the covenant relationship with God. The first, expressing a sense of the endurance of the covenant, treats the covenant as a unilateral grant; the “new covenant” metaphor adapts the treaty model, by retaining the elements of divine initiative and the people’s obligations, but annuls the provision for disobedience; and the “everlasting covenant” with the Exiles integrates the grant with the 16.  Therefore, I would disagree with Olyan’s reference to this position as “agnostic” (2008: 342).

The Covenant in the Book of Jeremiah

161

concept of internal transformation that will guarantee the covenant’s endurance. While differences between these three assertions seem to be more or less questions of nuance, the remaining two types of prophetic proclamation suggest altogether different metaphoric choices, using particular metaphorical vehicles to accommodate particular thematic perspectives. The following discussion focuses on nos. 4–5, on the family metaphors.

The Covenant Has Terminated: Utilization of the Family Metaphors (Jeremiah 2–3) The family metaphors of marriage and adoption are considerably less prominent in the book of Jeremiah. Of these two family metaphors, marriage is more common. Considered to postdate Hosea and predate Deutero-­Isaiah, the marital metaphor is restricted to judgment prophecies in Jeremiah (and in Ezekiel 16, 23). 17 The metaphor of the city as God’s consort is often combined with that of the people as God’s wife; that is, the city stands for “the (entire) people that reside in Jerusalem” (as in Jer 5:7; 13:20–27; 22:20–22), and it also appears in the context of mourning over Jerusalem’s distress (4:13–18, 29–31; 15:5–9). 18 The adoption metaphor, on the other hand, appears on its own in consolation prophecies directed to Ephraim (Jer 31:9, 18). The instances of the marital and the adoption metaphors in chaps. 2–3 illustrate Jeremiah’s deliberate use of each of them. Chapter 2 opens and concludes with invocation of the marital metaphor, through which the prophet portrays the past and the current covenant relationships between God and His people. 19 At the opening, Jeremiah reflects on the days of (Israel’s) youth and on the marital love between God and Israel as attested by the people’s obedience in the desert: “I accounted to your favor the devotion of your youth, your love as a bride—how you 17.  Greenberg outlines the thematic development of this theme from Hosea to Ezekiel (1983: 297–99). Components of the political covenant are exceptionally integrated with the marital metaphor in Jer 5:7 to accentuate Jerusalem’s sins. Cf. Carroll, who finds this complex metaphorical picture to be a barrier to the interpretation of the passage (1986: 178–80). 18.  For the divine consort as either the city or the people (and at times the merging of the two), see Galambush 1992: 35–38. Cf. Ezekiel’s specific usage of these metaphors, where the marital metaphor in particular provides the prophet with the option to distinguish between Jerusalem (and its inhabitants) as God’s (problematic) consort and the (real) people of God, that is, the Jehoiachin Exiles. See Rom-Shiloni 2005: 20–33; 2010: 89–114; 2013: 156–71. 19. The feminine imagery in chap. 2 is, therefore, regularly a metaphor for the people and not for the city. Cf. Galambush 1992: 53–5 and nn. 82, 57.

162

Dalit Rom-Shiloni

followed Me in the wilderness, in a land not sown” (2:2). In the closing passage (vv. 29–37), Jeremiah asks two rhetorical questions (vv. 31, 32) that use the imagery of the desert (v. 31) and of the people as a bride (v. 32), by which he expresses the current disobedience of the people and fiercely condemns the people’s sinful ways (vv. 33–37). 20 Jeremiah 2 presents all three components of the marital metaphor. The constitution of the marital relationship is portrayed as a period of faithfulness, walking after, following God in obedience; the hierarchal relationship between God and Israel is illustrated by the images of the flock following the shepherd, and the bride following the groom (v. 2). 21 The breaching of the commitments to the marriage is demonstrated in the ungratefulness and disloyalty of the woman/people, who is accused of deserting this leading/guiding, protecting God ‫עזבך את יהוה אלהיך בעת מוליכך בדרך‬ (“for forsaking the Lord your God while He led you in the way,” v. 17). In vv. 20–25, the people are quoted thrice, in contradictory citations that open with rebellious words (v. 20), followed by complete negation of the divine accusation of adultery (v. 23), which develops into a confession, admitting to indeed “love strangers” and walk after them (v. 25). 22 The responsibility for the dissolution of the marriage is thus placed squarely on the people/adulteress wife as this passage is the first in which the prophet defines the people as ‫“( צעה זנה‬You recline as a whore,” v. 20b), referring to the practical cultic sphere (see Deut 12:2) as straying after foreign gods, “strangers” (vv. 20–25). 23 From the theological perspective (accounting for the role of God as Savior in times of distress), disobedience to God 20.  Commentators distinguish two subunits in vv. 29–37: vv. 29–32 and vv. 33–37 (see for instance, Holladay, 1986: 71). But the connections to 2:2 show that vv. 29–37 close the entire chapter in an inclusio pattern. 21. Jer 2:3 further accentuates the divine protection over the people, see RomShiloni 2007: 50–52. 22.  Jer 2:20–25 is separately discussed in Rom-Shiloni 2014 : 757–75. 23.  The root ‫( זנה‬in 2:20) serves Jeremiah here and elsewhere (as in 3:1, 6, 8; 5:7) to present adulterous behavior of the people as a married and yet unfaithful wife, a behavior that is also designated by ‫( נאף‬as in Jer 3:8; and metaphorically, 3:9). Hence, the two verbs (‫ זנה‬and ‫ )נאף‬seem to be interchangeable in Jeremiah. Compare with the substantive ‫ זונה‬that commonly refers to a free woman (Gen 38:15; Josh 2:1; Judg 11:1), not to a married-adulterous wife. The word ‫ צעה‬is difficult. Rashi seems to suggest a contextual explanation that draws on the similarity between ‫ צעה‬and ‫( מצע‬see the hapax ‫מצע‬, in Isa 28:20). Rashi’s student Joseph Qara rendered the phrase “lying whore,” which McKane accepted (1986: 41). Holladay emphasizes the use of the two participles at the end of Jer 2:20 and thus translates: “You are sprawling, whoring” (1986: 98). I would not lose the designatory value of these participles that define the people as a whore (thus I concur with the NJPSV translation above). Still, Carroll’s comment (1986: 130) seems apt: “The reader’s imagination will serve better than a translation.”

The Covenant in the Book of Jeremiah

163

is articulated in Jeremiah 2 by both political alliances with the empires of Egypt and Assyria (vv. 17–18, 36) and by cultic misdeeds. 24 The two spheres are intertwined in the closing passage (vv. 33–37), where the imagery of straying after strange lovers in the cultic (even moral, v. 34) sphere is joined to the political sphere (v. 36–37, cf. vv. 17–18). Utilizing the marital metaphor and designating the people as an adulteress wife should have brought a calamitous judgment. But this is where the prophet presents a delicate, though significant switch. Verses 36–37 bring this prophetic unit to completion by adding to the projected judgment a theological explanation: “For the Lord has rejected those you trust, you will not prosper with them” (v. 37). In ‫ מאס יהוה במבטחיך‬the object of detestation is (surprisingly) not the people, but its unfaithful habit of trusting in different political forces. 25 In contradistinction to Hosea’s direct rejection: ‫“( ימאסם אלהי‬My God rejects them,” Hos 9:17; and the divorce formula he uses, “She is not my wife, and I am not her husband,” Hos 2:4), Jeremiah’s words “for the Lord has rejected those you trust” (Jer 2:37) gives another example of the prophet’s reluctance to give God an active role in breaking the covenant relationship with his people. Jeremiah’s selection of ‫“( מאס‬reject”), unusual in the prophet’s lexicon but one of the verbs common to the marital semantic field, designates a final and somewhat surprising softening of the divine action against the people. 26 This tactic accords with the prophet’s conception that lays full responsibility for breaching the covenant relationship entirely on the people. Only once do the family metaphors allow Jeremiah to describe God’s withdrawal from the covenant relationship as unavoidable. The disputation speech of Jer 3:1–5 presents God as reacting to the people’s disobedience­, 24.  Egypt and Assyria are the typological enemy-empires paired with Israel and Judah. Therefore, there is no need to connect the mention of Assyria to Jeremiah’s awareness of the Assyrian Empire’s decline. Cf. Holladay’s dating (1986: 79) of this prophecy. 25.  On the pattern of ‫מבצר‬, ‫משגב‬, ‫מעוז‬, etc., ‫ מבטח‬is a “safe place/point (metaphorically, person) to trust on”; Jeremiah borrows and inverts the repeated psalmodic motif that identifies God as the source of trust to the believer (e.g., Pss 40:5; 71:5; as also Prov 14:26; 22:19). The “trusted ones” (NJPSV: “those you trust”) of Jer 2:37 are Egypt and Assyria, mentioned in v. 36. See Lundbom 1999: 296. 26. Half of the 12 appearances of ‫ מאס‬in Jeremiah appear in quotations of the people, who in five cases accuse God of deserting his people (Jer 6:30[2]; 14:19[2]; 33:24; and in 4:29–31 the enemies are the agents); two appearances are responses to these quotations (31:37; 33:26); thus, only four times ‫ מאס‬appears as the prophet’s words. Twice it refers to the people’s sin in rejecting either God’s torah (6:19), or God’s words (8:9); and thus, in but one instance the people are the object of rejection (7:29). In our verse, 2:37, it seems again to refer to those the people have trusted, and not to the people themselves.

164

Dalit Rom-Shiloni

in keeping with the deuteronomic law of divorce (Deut 24:1–4). 27 Formally, this disputation speech is constructed in reverse of the sequence usually followed in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, so that the quotation of the disputants’ position is set at its conclusion (vv. 4–5) and not at its beginning. 28 Two statements are quoted: “Father! You are the companion of my youth!” and “Does one hate for all time? Does one rage forever?” According to the quotations, the God-people relationship is conceived of using the two family metaphors together. The covenant relationship is a relationship of adoption (‫אבי‬, “my Father”) as well as of marriage (‫אלוף‬ ‫נערי‬, “the Companion of my youth”). 29 The quotation is contextualized temporarily with ‫“( מעתה‬as of now”) which is meant to distinguish between the people’s previous behavior with God and their current different conduct. This general time reference does not clarify the exact context and the reason for the change in the woman/people’s attitude toward her husband/God. But the double rhetorical question “Does one hate for all time? Does one rage forever?” (v. 5) anticipates that God’s rage will soon calm down in the face of the people’s transformation, which is demonstrated in the declaration of faithfulness (v. 4). 30 The two quotations in Jer 3:4–5 thus elucidate the multivoiced discussion concerning the fate of the God-people relationship in a time when the people are showing intention to repent. 31 In order to refute the people’s words, Jeremiah continues the quotation’s metaphorical marital imagery, but he completely neglects the adoption metaphor. The prophet’s refutation (vv. 1–3) rests on the law of divorce (Deut 24:1–4), specifically on the prohibition against a husband 27.  For a discussion of the exegetical steps in Jer 3:1–5, see Rom-Shiloni 2009: 262–67. 28.  A similar construct appears in Hag 2:10–14, and in three polemical passages at Exod 8:22; Lev 10:18; 25:20. See Hobbs 1974: 23–29, and compare Long’s accurate criticism (1976: 386–90, especially pp. 386–87). Graffy (1984) did not count Jer 3:1–5 among his list of the disputation speeches. 29.  The father and husband metaphors are intertwined in Jer 3:19–20 and in Ezek 16:1–43 as well. Thus, there is no need to accept the scholarly suggestion to correct the verse by deleting ‫ אבי‬from it (so Duhm 1901: 35; and see Holladay 1986: 58, 115). ‫“( אלוף נעוריה‬the companion of her youth”) appears in Prov 2:17 parallel to ‫ברית אלהיה‬ (“the covenant of her God”), which caused Toy (1977: 46–47) to argue that the marriage has a divine validity. But Toy also argued that it is possible that the verse in Proverbs is dependent on the Jeremian passage (Jer 3:5); and see ‫ אשת נעורים‬in Prov 5:18. 30.  See Ps 103:9; and in the prophet’s words, Jer 3:12. 31.  This quotation counters Olyan’s fifth position (2008: 341, 343). The prophetic quotation of the people’s repentance and confession of sins goes beyond the position of the Holiness Legislation and Deuteronomy.

The Covenant in the Book of Jeremiah

165

remarrying his divorced wife after she has married another. This legal precedent in the deuteronomic law is invoked here by the pivotal question: ‫“( הישוב אליה עוד‬can he ever go back to her?” 3:1a). By choosing this law, the prophet transfers the social and legal framework of marriage to the metaphorical realm, in order to describe the relationship between God and his people. At face value, Jeremiah’s question accords with the law: “the first husband who divorced her shall not take her to wife again, since she has been defiled” (Deut 24:4). The prophet’s paraphrase keeps the initiative for the divorce with the husband/God, including the hypothetical desire to remarry the first wife. But Jeremiah continues to a second rhetorical question, ‫“( ושוב אלי‬can you return to me?” 3:1b), in which he points to the woman/people’s initiative, a situation that has no legal or literary precedent in Deuteronomy. 32 While the deuteronomic law establishes both the marriage and the divorce as entirely the prerogative of the man, the prophecy’s question, “Can you return to me?” presents the possibility of reinstatement of the relationship at the initiative of the woman/people. This reversal is not coincidental, but is the prophet’s deliberate reaction to the people’s obedient (or only seemingly obedient) proclamations quoted in vv. 4–5. 33 The Deuteronomic law is used by the prophet as a direct analogy, given its force by the principle “from the minor to the major” (Qal vahomer). The law deals with one man, one woman, and her marriage to another (marriage that ends in divorce or death of the second husband). The legal­precedent is thus very different from the metaphorical situation projected for the God-people relationship, in which the woman is said to have whored with “many lovers” (v. 1). As the law forbids the man to 32.  Holladay points out other formal differences between Jer 3:1–5 and the law in Deut 24:1–4 (1986: 112). These differences caused Hobbs (1974: 23–29) to conclude that there is no literary dependence between the passages, and that there must be assumed a third legal source earlier than both Jeremiah and Deuteronomy. The major difficulty with Hobbs’s position is his expectation that the prophet must have been fully restricted by the law in theme and style. For additional criticisms of Hobbs, see Long 1976: 386–87. 33.  This is probably the reason that the Septuagint had transformed the question μηּ αׂνακάμπτουσα αׂνακάμφει προּς αυׂτοּν εׂτι (“Will she really return back to him?” See Holladay 1986: 113). The woman’s/people’s initiative to return to God as the former husband is also expressed in Hos 2:9; up to 2:15 the possibility is likewise denied, through a fierce judgment prophecy (in distinction from Hos 2:16–25). Therefore, contra Hyatt (1941: 119–20) there is no reason to accept the Septuagint’s version of Jer 3:1 as original or better than the MT. This analysis adds another example to the list of harmonizations, passages in which the Septuagint tends to adapt MT Jeremiah to Deuteronomy.

166

Dalit Rom-Shiloni

remarry­his former wife (literally: “to return and take her as his wife”), how much more decisive it is in excluding the possibility that God can return to His people; that is, to the woman who has been constantly and repeatedly disloyal to him with many men. 34 Using this civil law, known to the prophet and to his audience, the prophet presents a very extreme view of the God-people relationship. Jeremiah portrays the marital relationship as irredeemable because of the woman’s/people’s sins, and its culmination in divorce as happening at God’s/the husband’s initiative. This disputation speech differs from the usual prophetic exhortations in the book of Jeremiah in three features. First, through the quotations it presents the people as faithful, following their repentance. Thus, it contradicts the repeated prophetic calls addressed to the people to return to God in Jer 3:6–4:2. Second, this passage reverses the usual picture of God’s role, as it proclaims that God is the one who withdrew from the covenant relationship. Finally, defining the people’s sins as adultery brings the Godpeople relationship into an irreparable state. By evoking the deuteronomic law, the prophet is able to illustrate that God is prevented from returning his wife/the people to himself. Hence, the marital metaphor precludes any option of restoration to the God-people relationship. Concerning this last point, this prophecy is also exceptional in comparison to Hosea’s use of the marital metaphor. While Jeremiah’s extreme position rests on the same divorce formula used in Hosea (Hos 2:4), the latter foresees a pattern of sin, punishment, and reinstitution of the marriage connections to be done by leading the people back to the desert (Hos 2:16–24). In Jeremiah’s disputation speech, however, the prophet does not foresee a “happy ending” of reinstituted marriage. Jer 3:6–4:2 follow this harsh disputation with five prophetic passages which add diverse reactions to the same quotation brought in 3:4–5 (3:6– 11, 12–13, 14–18, 19–25; 4:1–2). 35 Of these five units, vv. 19–25 provide a completion to the present discussion. 34.  The understanding of Jer 3:1 as a Qal vahomer and thus as adducing a break in the God-people relationship was suggested by McKane (1986: 63–64) and Lundbom (1997: 54; 1999: 301–2). Cf. Yaron 1966: 1–11, esp. p. 3; Fishbane 1988: 307–12. 35. Cf. Lundbom, who considers 3:6–18 to be built around v. 12 (1999: 305). Holladay treats the unit 2:1–4:4 as dealing with the nation’s harlotry in three Jeremian recensions (1986: 62–3): first, addressing the north (the lawsuit in 3:1–2, 4–5; and the calls for repentance in 3:12, 14–15, 18b); second, “a large expansion” of the first recension as part of the first scroll (which in chap. 3 includes only vv. 13, 21b); third, “a slight expansion” of the second scroll (3:3a, 3b, 20); and finally, under “later expansions” Holladay puts 3:6–11, 16–18b (1968: 68). Cf. Hoffman, who argued for separation of chap. 2 from chap. 3; within each, he found pronouncements from the

The Covenant in the Book of Jeremiah

167

Reestablishment of Familial Relationships of Adoption (Jeremiah 3:19–25) Jer 3:19–20 opens the passage 3:19–25 with yet another allusion to the pronouncement, “You are my father, the companion of my youth” (3:4): 36 ‫ואנכי אמרתי איך אשיתך בבנים ואתן לך ארץ חמדה נחלת צבי צבאות גוים‬ (‫ תשובי‬:‫ תקראי) לי ומאחרי לא תשובו (ק‬:‫ואמר אבי תקראו (ק‬ ‫אכן בגדה אשה מרעה כן בגדתם בי בית ישראל נאם יהוה‬ I had resolved: Alas will I adopt you as My child, and give you a desirable land — the fairest heritage of all the nations?; and I thought you would surely call Me “Father,” and never cease to be loyal to Me. Instead, as indeed a woman breaks faith with a paramour, so you have broken faith with Me, O House of Israel — declares the Lord.

The word ‫ איך‬may be understood here in two distinct senses, and each puts a different spin on Jer 3:19. As an interrogative, ‫ איך‬with the meaning “how,” opens the divine intent (that would be the more common meaning of ‫איך‬, as in Jer 9:6), and with the reference to the beautiful land and to the people’s fidelity, is thus explained as appealing to positive divine intentions. This is the direction taken by the NJPSV, “I had resolved to adopt you as my child,” and Holladay, “How (gladly) will I treat you like sons!” 37 But ‫ איך‬may better stand for an assertion of grief, “Alas” (as in Hos 11:8). 38 In this venue, the divine cry is fully contextualized in the people’s current (and long-standing) disobedience, as has been presented in 3:1–5. Verses 19–20 bring God’s monologue. It alludes to his long known best intentions (as in Deut 32:8–9), his beneficial thoughts of constituting adoption relationship with the people, giving them the best of all lands, expecting the people’s recognition of God as Father, and their constant loyalty. 39 early years of Jeremiah (for instance, 3:1–2, 4–5, 19–20) side by side with late prophecies and editorial connectors (such as 3:6–11, 14–18; see 2001: 124–29). 36.  The “negotiation” between the passages starts with the opening words: ‫ואנכי‬ ‫( אמרתי‬v. 19) in response to ‫( ואת זנית‬v. 1b) and to vv. 4–5; see Holladay 1986: 121. Stade had first suggested that Jer 3:19–25 continues vv. 1–5, before vv. 6–18 were interpolated (1884: 151–54). McKane criticizes this suggestion of a connection between vv. 1–5 and vv. 19–25, basically because he considers the “jump” from husband-wife to father-son imagery a harsh transition (1986: 82–83). The above discussion, however, suggests the close connections between the use of the two family metaphors. 37. See Bright 1965: 20; Holladay 1986: 60; as also McKane 1986: 78, and others. 38.  With this meaning of grief, note also the people’s cry in Ps 137:4. The word ‫איך‬ appears in another common context in Jeremiah, that is, in cries and prophecies that refer to destruction and death (Jer 9:18; 48:39; 49:25; 50:23, 41; also Isa 14:4, 12; Mic 2:4; Obadiah 5–6; Zeph 2:15). 39.  For allusions to Deut 32:8–9, see Holladay 1986: 53–56; McKane 1986: 78–79.

168

Dalit Rom-Shiloni

In this context, the contrast between the divine parental love and the people’s ungrateful behavior is exemplified through the marital metaphor. This may be the reason for the second singular feminine toward the beginning of v. 19. 40 The two metaphors, the marital and the adoptive, are still intertwined in v. 19, as the second feminine singular pronouns (referring to the people as the divine consort) change in the Kethiv to the second plural (referring to the people as God’s sons). This switch, which the Qere forms try to correct, continues in v. 20, with the utilization of the marital metaphor to designate the people as an adulterous wife, before it refers directly to “the House of Israel” in the second plural (v. 20b). The textual evidence of the Kethiv and Qere may indeed reflect Jeremiah’s transformation of the family metaphors. 41 The plural forms retain the adoption formula; the singular feminine forms refer to the people as the adulterous wife. Jer 3:19–25, then, separates the family metaphors, distinguishing the adoption and marriage metaphors. The prophet proclaims that the marital relationship between God and the people, which had obtained from its constitution and through the long period of disobedience, had ended with the destruction in a final, unchangeable divorce. With the cry of grief (v. 19), God expects and encourages Israel as “sons” to repent and reinstitute the obedient, close relationship between God the Father and the people-sons (v. 22). 42 The adoption metaphor allows the prophet to project a hopeful outlook for the future relationship. Revitalizing the adoption metaphor to apply to Judah is in keeping with Jeremiah’s earlier prophecies to Israel (31:9, 18–20). This metaphor, then, is the only family metaphor that can supply a future of hope for reinstituting the God-people relationship. 43 The metaphor of marriage cannot serve this role for Jeremiah. 40.  ‫ שית‬with the feminine object in ‫ אשיתך בבנים‬means “set, place, ordain as,” as in the human arena (2 Sam 19:29; Gen 41:33); but also “make something into” (in Jer 2:15; 22:6; 50:3; and Isa 5:6, etc.). HALOT (p. 1485) explains the usage in Jer 3:19 as “to place someone in the position of ” and understands this sense of replacement as giving a land to the metaphorical woman; that is, as a legal transaction usually restricted to a male. But this seems an unnecessary stretch, if we accept the above suggestion that the two metaphors are combined here. Compare also McKane’s understanding of the feminine pronoun as referring to the land and not the people (1986: 79). 41.  Gordis categorizes these Kethiv/Qere as rhetorical variations in person, gender­, or number reflecting different transmission traditions or exegetical changes (1971: 140–41). 42.  I would thus accept McKane’s suggestion for considering 3:1–5, 12–13, and 19–25 to be Jeremian passages, indeed, independent passages addressed to Judah (1986: 83). Cf. Holladay who argues that the early recension of these prophetic passages were addressed to the north (1986: 72). 43. Cf. Olyan, who considers readoption to be another “anti-rejectionist” position that stands behind the two-sided covenant formula (2008: 340, 343). Thus, he adds

The Covenant in the Book of Jeremiah

169

This change of metaphors reaches its climax in the implicit proclamation within God’s response at the close of this prophetic unit, in Jer 4:1–2: ‫“( ואם תשוב ישראל נאם יהוה אלי תשוב‬If you return, O Israel—declares the Lord—to me you return”). This indeed negates the opening statement in, 3:1–5, which, through the marriage metaphor, closed off the option of return. 44 Changing to the adoption metaphor reopens this possibility in a different metaphoric relationship altogether. The new covenant relationship is set forth in v. 2, in the apodosis to the two conditional clauses of v. 1. The form of this future covenant relationship is that of the Abrahamic covenant of grant, which expects true loyalty (Jer 4:2a, see Gen 15:6) and promises political greatness (Jer 4:2b, see Gen 22:18). 45

Summary and Conclusions The God-people covenant relationship no doubt generated great interest in Jeremiah’s prophecy among his contemporaries. Biblical literature from throughout the sixth century B.C.E. further illustrates the vital, multifaceted, and theological context in which the book of Jeremiah is to be situated. The common denominator in dealing with the God-people relationship seems to be the use of political and family metaphors to describe this relationship along an axis of time—suggesting retrospective, current, and prospective views, as a way to understand the past, cope with the present, and generate hope for the future. It is thus clear that Jeremiah’s use of each of these two metaphoric worlds illustrates a deliberate and thoughtful choice, by which the prophet perceives theological distinctions between his descriptions of the Godpeople relationship. While according to both metaphorical frameworks, the people are responsible for their distress, the metaphors part company in the ways they portray God’s reactions to the people’s behavior, and thus in the way they perceive options for restoration. Drawing on the laws concerning adultery, the marriage metaphor does not hold out hope for future reestablishment of the God-people relationship. But the political metaphor, which invokes the political covenant with its conditions of reward and punishment, is the one image that may be transformed to portray a future reinstitution of the covenant relationship. other instances of the covenant formula to this list: Jer 30:22; 31:1; 32:38; and Ezek 36:28. 44.  Lundbom correctly adds that 4:2 responds also to 3:4–5 with what Jeremiah considers vain talk (1999: 327). 45. See Holladay, who counts 4:1–2 as closing the earliest recension to the north, which had opened with the exhortation of 2:4–9 (1986: 66, 68).

170

Dalit Rom-Shiloni

On this axis of time, the political metaphor supplies an overarching conception of the God-people relationship. Governing judgment prophecies, speeches, and as the only metaphor applied in reference to the reinstitution of the covenant, this metaphor allows Jeremiah to look back to the original constitution of the covenant relationship, judge the people as violators of covenant obligations in the present, and yet forecast a future reinstitution of the covenant relationship at the initiative of the Sovereign. Furthermore, the two political formats, the covenant of grant and the treaty, are innovatively employed by Jeremiah: he portrays the enduring covenant following the pattern of the covenant of grant (31:35–36, 37; 33:17–18, 19–22, 23–26) but never gives up the treaty format by which God obligates the people to obey Him in other contexts (31:31–34). The political metaphor, furthermore, has great importance within contemporary arguments of theodicy. It clarifies that, throughout the current situation of destruction and exile, God’s role has been circumscribed to that of the Sovereign, who stipulates punishment against the rebellious people. But God has not withdrawn from the covenant and thus retains his royal prerogative to reinstitute the covenant relationship. The limited number of instances of the marriage metaphor, on the other hand, seem to be due to its pessimistic implications. It allows the prophet to add accusations of unfaithfulness and ingratitude against the people. But beyond validation of the people’s past and current guilt, the situation of the adulterous wife in this marital relationship illustrates the termination of the God-people relationship. The fact that this metaphor has no future to suggest for the God-people relationship may be the reason­for its scant use in Jeremiah. On the contrary, however, the adoption metaphor balances between the familial and political metaphoric worlds. It allows for the readoption of the children by their father, thus functioning in a similar way to the covenant of grant or to the political treaty, with its royal prerogative for reinstatement in the covenant relationship. To conclude this study, I should readdress the opening question: what could the book of Jeremiah have contributed to Persian period deliberations concerning the covenant between God and the people? I follow Freedman (1964) in suggesting that Jeremiah’s greatest contribution does not seem to have been the “new covenant” at all but rather his use of the political metaphor, which undergirded the “old” covenant pattern. This pattern retained the full diachronic extent of the God-people covenant relationship from its constitution in the distant past to the people’s present obligations to the divine commandments (the torah) and on to the future prospect of an ongoing covenant relationship. This “old pattern” political

The Covenant in the Book of Jeremiah

171

covenant indeed functions in the ‫אמנה‬, the postexilic reinstitution of the covenant (Neh 10:1–40) 46 and forms the background for the penitential prayers in Ezra–Nehemiah and Daniel (Dan 9:4–19; Ezra 9:6–14; Neh 1:5–11; 9:6–37). 47 Observing the rich diversity even within the framework of the political covenant metaphor, we have seen that indeed the “new covenant” was but one of several prophetic images for expression of the continuity of the covenant relationship during the sixth century B.C.E. The marriage metaphor was almost lost following its appearances in Jeremiah, 48 while the adoption and political metaphors flourished in early Persian period biblical literature. 49 46. See Bautch 2009: 109–14. Adherence to the divine law as obligatory to the reinstitution of the covenant in post-exilic sources is further demonstrated by Freedman and Miano 2003: 20–21. 47.  On the close connections between these prophetic conceptions (together with Deuteronomistic and other mainstream/“orthodox” positions) and the penitential prayers, see Rom-Shiloni 2006: 51–68. 48.  The marital metaphor in Deutero-Isaiah refers to Jerusalem (the city, not the people) as the neglected widow and as the mother whose children will be gathered in (as in Isa 49:15–21). 49.  As in Isa 63:7–64:11; see 63:16–19; 64:7–8.

Bibliography Bautch, R. J. 2009 Glory and Power, Ritual and Relationship: The Sinai Covenant in the Postexilic Period. Library of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Series 471. New York and London: T. & T. Clark. Brettler, M. Z. 1989 God Is King: Understanding an Israelite Metaphor. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 76. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. 1999 The Metaphorical Mapping of God in the Hebrew Bible. Pp. 219–32 in Metaphor, Canon, and Community: Jewish, Christian and Islamic Approaches, ed. R. Bisschops and J. Francis. Religions and Discourse 1. Bern: Peter Lang. Bright, J. 1965 Jeremiah. Anchor Bible 21. New York: Doubleday. Carroll, R. P. 1986 Jeremiah. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster. Duhm, B. 1901 Das Buch Jeremia. KHAT 11. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Eissfeldt, O. 1928 Jahwe als König. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 46: 81–105.

172

Dalit Rom-Shiloni

Fishbane, M. 1985 Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon. Freedman, D. N. 1964 Divine Commitment and Human Obligation. Interpretation 18: 419–31. Freedman, D. N., and Miano, D. 2003 People of the New Covenant. Pp. 7–26 in The Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period, ed. S. E. Porter and J. de Roo. Leiden: Brill. Galambush, J. 1992 Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel: The City as Yahweh’s Wife. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 130. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Gordis, R. 1971 The Biblical Text in the Making: A Study of the Kethib-Qere. Augmented Edition. New York: Ktav. Graffy, A. 1984 A Prophet Confronts His People: The Disputation Speech in the Prophets. Analecta Biblica 104. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Greenberg, M. 1983 Ezekiel 1–20. Anchor Bible 22. New York: Doubleday. 1997 Ezekiel 21–37. Anchor Bible 22A. New York: Doubleday. Haran, M. 2003 The Biblical Collection: Its Consolidation to the End of the Second Temple Times and Changes of Form to the End of the Middle Ages. Vol. 2. Jerusalem: Magnes. Hareuveni, N. 1991 Desert and Shepherd in Our Biblical Heritage. Lod: Neot Qedumim. Hobbs, T. R. 1974 Jeremiah 3:1–5 and Deuteronomy 24:1–4. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 86: 23–29. Hofmann, Y. 2001 Jeremiah 1–25. Mikra LeIsrael. Jerusalem: Magnes / Tel Aviv: Am Oved (Hebrew). Holladay, W. L. 1986 Jeremiah 1. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress. Hyatt, J. P. 1941 Torah in the Book of Jeremiah. Journal of Biblical Literature 60: 381–96. Knoppers, G. N. 1996 Ancient Near Eastern Royal Grants and the Davidic Covenant: A Parallel? Journal of the American Oriental Society 116: 670–97. 1998 David’s Relation to Moses: The Contexts, Content, and Conditions of the Davidic Promises. Pp. 91–118 in King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East, ed. J. Day. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 270. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Long, B. O. 1976 The Stylistic Components of Jeremiah 3:1–5. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 88: 386–90. Lundbom, J. R. 1997 Jeremiah: A Study in Ancient Hebrew Rhetoric. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

The Covenant in the Book of Jeremiah

173

1999 Jeremiah 1–20. Anchor Bible 21A. New York: Doubleday. 2004 Jeremiah 21–36. Anchor Bible 21B. New York: Doubleday. McKane, W. 1986 Jeremiah 1–25. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Mendenhall, G. 1954 Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition. Biblical Archaeologist 17: 50–76. Mettinger, T. N. D. 1987 In Search of God: The Meaning and Message of the Everlasting Names, trans. F. H. Cryer. Philadelphia: Fortress. Nicholson, E. W. 1970 Preaching to the Exiles: A Study of the Prose Tradition in the Book of Jeremiah. Oxford: Blackwell. 1986 God and His People: Covenant and Theology in the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon. Olyan, S. M. 2008 The Status of Covenant during the Exile. Pp. 333–44 in Berührungspunkte: Studien zur Sozial- und Religionsgeschichte Israels und seiner Umwelt: Festschrift für Rainer Albertz zu seinem 65. Geburstag, ed. I. Kottsieper, R. Schmitt, and J. Wöhrle. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 350. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. Parpola, S., and Watanabe, K. 1988 Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths. State Archives of Assyria 2. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. Paul, S. M. 1979–80  Adoption Formulae: A Study of Cuneiform and Biblical Legal Clauses. Maarav 2: 173–85. Rom-Shiloni, D. 2005 Ezekiel as the Voice of the Exiles and Constructor of Exilic Ideology. HUCA 76: 1–45. 2006 Socio-ideological Setting or Settings for Penitential Prayers? Pp. 51–68 in Seeking the Favor of God, vol. 1: The Origins of Penitential Prayer in Second Temple Judaism, ed. M. Boda, D. K. Falk, and R. A. Werline. Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and Its Literature 21. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. 2007 The Pentateuch in the Book of Jeremiah: The Exegetical Techniques and the Ideological Intentions. Shnaton 17: 43–87 (Hebrew). 2009 Actualization of Pentateuchal Legal Traditions in Jeremiah: More on the Riddle of Authorship. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 15: 254–81. 2010 Jerusalem and Israel, Synonyms or Antonyms? Jewish Exegesis of Ezekiel’s Prophecies against Jerusalem. Pp. 89–114 in After Ezekiel: Essays on the Reception of a Difficult Prophet, ed. A. Mein and P. Joyce. New York: T. & T. Clark. 2013 Exclusive Inclusivity: Identity Conflicts between the Exiles and the People Who Remained (6th–5th Centuries B.C.E.). Library of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament 543. New York: T. & T. Clark.

174

Dalit Rom-Shiloni

2014 How Can You Say, “I Am Not Defiled” (Jer 2:20–25): Allusions to Priestly Legal Traditions in the Poetry of Jeremiah.” JBL 133 (2014): 757–75. forthcoming  “On the Day I Freed Them from the Land of Egypt”: A NonDeuteronomic Phrase within Jeremiah’s Covenant Conception” Vetus Testamentum. Seitz, C. R. 1989 Theology in Conflict: Reactions to the Exile in the Book of Jeremiah. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 176. Berlin: de Gruyter. Stade, B. 1884 Miscellen vom Herausgeber. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 4: 151–54. Thompson, J. A. 1980 Jeremiah. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Toy, C. H. 1977 Proverbs. International Critical Commentary 17. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Weinfeld, M. 1970 The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East. Journal of the American Oriental Society 90: 184–96. 1975 Berit. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament 2:253–79. 1992 Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. 2nd ed. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Yaron, R. 1966 The Restoration of Marriage. Journal of Semitic Studies 17: 1–11.

Inner-Biblical Interpretation in the Redaction of Jeremiah 33:14–26 Matthew Sjöberg Pennsylvania State University

Introduction Despite the difficulties in determining the compositional history of the book of Jeremiah, 1 we are in the fortunate position of having textual evidence for two different recensions. The Old Greek (the LXX) 2 version of Jeremiah, supported by 4QJerb, d, is one-seventh shorter than the version in the MT and also has a somewhat different arrangement of the oracles within the book. While some (Grothe 1981: 188–90; Lundbom 2004: 538–39) have suggested that the LXX represents a later version from which the minuses in relation to the MT are due to either haplography or were intentionally omitted, 3 the majority of scholars consider the LXX to be representative of a Hebrew recension that predates the MT version of Jeremiah (see, for example, Tov 1981; Waard 2003). This position is undoubtedly correct, making it possible to compare the LXX and the MT, particularly the plusses in MT, to get an idea of the types of redactional activity that the text of Jeremiah underwent in the course of its development. The largest of these plusses in the MT is Jer 33:14–26. 1.  Compare, for example, the widely different conclusions about the composition history of Jeremiah by Carroll (1986: 38–50), Holladay (1986: 16–24), and McKane (1986: clxii–clxiv, 861–65). 2.  While the term Septuagint (the LXX) can be used generically to refer to any ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, in this paper I will use “the LXX” to refer specifically to the Old Greek. Note that the Lucianic (GL) and Hexaplaric (GO) witnesses testify to the longer version found in the MT. 3.  Lundbom (2004: 538–39), for example, argues that 33:14–26 are not present in the LXX due to haplography, but his arguments are far from convincing. He suggests that the haplography is due to homeoarcton (‫ ה‬. . . ‫)ה‬, but this is an extraordinarily large section to lose based on the repetition of a single letter. His note that vv. 16–20 are present in 4QJerc is irrelevant because this is one of the texts that tends to follow the MT text type.

175

176

Matthew Sjöberg

This essay will examine the way in which the redactor who composed Jer 33:14–26 based these oracles on older Jeremianic, Deuteronomistic, and covenantal passages. The changes the redactor made to his source materials and the content of the new oracles points to a time of composition in the Persian period. As it currently stands in the MT, Jer 33:14–26 forms the conclusion to what is often called the Book of Consolation (Jeremiah 30–33). These four chapters contain the majority of the hopeful oracles in Jeremiah (Lundbom 2004: 368–69), and the passage under consideration provides an apt conclusion, containing only promises for a bright future. These promises consist of hope for a restored Davidic monarchy, assurances for the continuation of the legitimate priesthood (and, therefore, continuation of sacrifices), and a guarantee of the continuation of Israel’s national identity. It is customary to divide this passage into four oracles: vv. 14–17 (a sprout for David), vv. 18–19 (promises for David and the Levites), vv. 20–22 (Yahweh’s unbreakable covenants with David and the Levites), and vv. 23–26 (Yahweh will not reject David’s descendants). For convenience, the last two oracles will be considered together because they draw on the same traditum, to use Fishbane’s terminology (1985: 6).

Oracle of the Davidic Sprout: Jeremiah 33:14–17 The first of the four oracles in this section of Jeremiah is a prose oracle transparently based on the earlier poetic oracle of Jer 23:5–6 in which Yahweh promises to raise up a “righteous/legitimate sprout” for David (table 1). 4 The redactor made the following changes to his source passage: 1.  He separated the verb ‫‘ הקמתי‬I will raise up’ from its original object (‫צמח‬ ‫‘ צדיק‬a righteous sprout’) and gave that verb a new object (‫‘ הדבר הטוב‬the good word’). 5 2.  He added a second date formula, ‫‘ בימים ההם‬in those days’, to compensate for separating the initial date formula, ‫‘ הנה ימים באים‬look, days are coming’, from the oracle it was introducing. 3.  He omitted the phrase ‫‘ ומלך מלך והשכיל‬he will reign as king and be successful’. 4. E. Nicholson (1971: 89–91) argues that reforming a poetic oracle into prose is one of the marks of the Deuteronomistic redaction of the book, and that 33:14–26 owes its form to these Deuteronomistic redactors. It should be noted that Nicholson wrote before the discovery of 4QJerb clarified the relationship of the LXX and MT versions of Jeremiah, a clarification which seems to require this passage to be added later than Nicholson’s redactors. 5. B. Sommer (1998: 238) notes that dividing a phrase such as this is a technique used frequently in Deutero-Isaiah to allude to older material.

Redaction of Jeremiah 33:14–26

177

Table 1. A “Sprout” for David in Jeremah Jeremiah 23:5–6

Jeremiah 33:14–17

‫הנה ימים באים נאם יהוה‬ ‫והקמתי‬ ‫לדוד צמח צדיק ומלך מלך והשכיל‬ ‫ועשה משפט וצדקה בארץ‬ ‫בימיו תושע יהודה‬ ‫וישראל ישכן לבטח‬ ‫וזה שמו אשר יקראו יהוה צדקנו‬

‫הנה ימים באים נאם יהויה‬ ‫והקמתי את הדבר הטוב אשר דברתי אל בית‬ ‫ישראל ועל בית יהודה‬ ‫בימים ההם ובעת ההיא אצמיח‬ a  ‫לדוד צמח צדיק‬ ‫ועשה משפט וצדקה בארץ‬ ‫בימים ההם תושע יהודה‬ ‫וירושלם תשכון לבטח‬ ‫וזה אשר יקרא לה יהוה צדקנו‬

Look, days are coming (oracle of Yahweh) when I will raise up for David a righteous/legitimate sprout and he will reign as king and be successful, and he will do justice and righteousness in the land. In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will dwell securely, and this is his name which one will call him: Yahweh is our righteousness.

Look, days are coming (oracle of Yahweh), when I will raise up the good word which I spoke to the house of Israel and to/concerning the house of Judah. In those days and at that time I will cause to sprout for David a righteous/legitimate sprout,b and he will do justice and righteousness in the land. In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will dwell securely, and this is what one will call it: Yahweh is our righteousness.

a.  The MT reads ‫צדקה‬, but GL and GO read dikaian (= ‫)צדיק‬. While the reading in GL and GO may be an attempt to harmonize with 23:5, it is more likely that the reading in the MT was changed due to the presence of ‫ וצדרה‬later in the same verse (see McKane 1986: 861). Job (2006: 133) takes ‫ צדקה‬as the original here and contends that while the earlier oracle was concerned with the legitimacy of the king, this later oracle is concerned with his righteousness. b. The same expression, ‫צמח צדק‬, appears in the Larnax Lapethos 2 Inscription (KAI 43:11, early 3rd century B.C.E.) and is typically translated “legitimate offspring” (see KAI 16:1; Lundbom 2004: 173).

4.  He changed the last date formula from ‫‘ בימיו‬in his [the Davidic sprout’s] days’ to ‫‘ בימים ההם‬in those days’. 5.  He changed ‫‘ וישראל ישכן לבטח‬Israel will dwell securely’ to ‫וירושלם תשכון‬ ‫‘ לבטח‬Jerusalem will dwell securely’. 6.  He made ‫‘ יהוה צדקנו‬Yahweh is our righteousness’ the name which will be given to Jerusalem instead of the name given to the Davidic sprout. 6 6. J. Lust (1994: 38–39) also points out that in v. 15 ‫‘ צדיק‬righteous’ has been changed to ‫‘ צדקה‬righteousness’ and suggests that this change is due to the association

178

Matthew Sjöberg

The cumulative effect of these changes is to shift the emphasis of this oracle away from a promised successor to David and toward those to whom the Davidic successor is promised, especially the city of Jerusalem. The addition of the second half of v. 14 (“[I will lift up] the good word which I spoke to the house of Israel and to/concerning the house of Judah”) may explicitly mark what follows as a reference to the earlier oracle in 23:5–6. If this is the case, “the good word” that Yahweh had spoken was the Jeremianic poetic oracle in 23:5–6 (Fishbane 1985: 473; Carroll 1986: 637). In that context, the Davidic sprout is promised after a condemnation of Jeconiah (22:24–30) and the other leaders of the people (referred to as “shepherds,” 23:1–2), followed by a promise that Yahweh would bring the exiles back from exile (23:3) and give them good shepherds (23:4). In its reworked form in chap. 33, the oracle follows promises of the restoration of Jerusalem and the cities of Judah (33:1–13) which include the return of shepherds and their flocks to the land (33:12–13). It may be that the mention of shepherds in the context of restoration recalled to the mind of the redactor the initial promise of the Davidic sprout, leading to his reworking of that promise. By placing these reworked oracles here, the redactor seems to be suggesting that the restoration of the Davidic line will only occur after the restoration of Judah, although it may be that he recognized chaps. 30–33 as a discrete section and is merely adding the new material to the end (van der Toorn 2007: 127–28). The phrase ‫‘ והקמתי את הדבר הטוב‬I will raise up the good word’ may also be a way of referring to promises for both a continued Davidic dynasty and a restoration of the exiles to the land. The Hiphil of ‫‘ קום‬to raise up’ with the object ‫‘ דבר‬word’ is used, among other places, in 2 Sam 7:25; 1 Kgs 2:4; 6:12; and 8:20 to refer to Yahweh’s promise to David to perpetuate his dynasty. 7 The idea of ‫‘ הדבר הטוב‬the good word’ is used to refer to Yahweh’s promise to Israel to give the Israelites the promised land (Josh 21:45; 23:14–15; 1 Kgs 8:56) and to restore the exiles to this land (Jer 29:10) and is reminiscent of the hope offered in Jehoiachin’s release from prison in Babylon in 2 Kgs 25:27–30. Jer 29:10 is particularly important in that it uses both the Hiphil of ‫ קום‬along with ‫‘ דברי הטוב‬my good word’ of the word “righteousness” with David. Considering that the redactor seems to be shifting focus away from the Davidic heir, this does not appear to be sufficient reason for the change. It is more likely that ‫ צדקה‬in 33:15 arose from a scribal error and that it originally read ‫( צדיק‬see n. 5 above). 7.  1 Kgs 2:4 and 8:20 are significant because both are in contexts that include the phrase “[David] shall not lack a man sitting upon the throne of Israel,” a phrase taken up by the redactor of Jeremiah in the next oracle (33:17–18).

Redaction of Jeremiah 33:14–26

179

to promise a return to the land from Babylon. Moreover, the word good is missing from the LXX of Jer 29:10 and was likely added at the same time that the redactor added Jer 33:14–26. “The good word” that Yahweh will “raise up,” then, is his promise to restore the exiles to their homeland, and uses language reminiscent of the Davidic covenant. The change of “Israel” to “Jerusalem” in v. 16 is particularly striking here when one considers the hope of restoration for the Northern Kingdom expressed throughout the Book of Consolation (see 31:2–6, 15–22). 8 This change downplays the possibility of a restored Northern Kingdom, placing emphasis instead on the effect a Davidic successor will have on Judah and also serves to direct the reader’s attention to Jerusalem, the government and religious center of Judah, thus preparing the way for the promises to the Levitical priesthood in vv. 18ff. 9 The omission of “he will reign as king” in Jer 33:15 softens the suggestion implied by this passage of an independent Judah ruled by its own king. Although the term ‫‘ מלך‬reign’ is used in 33:21 and the mention of David’s throne (‫ ;כסא‬vv. 17, 21) has obvious royal implications, the omission of the phrase here speaks to a possible time of composition in which Judah was not actively seeking independence from the foreign power ruling over them, and a time when a Davidic figure was in charge of Judah in a capacity other than king (for example, Zerubbabel as governor) would fit well. Omitting this phrase aids in shifting the focus from the promised ruler himself to the effects this ruler will have on Judah and Jerusalem. The redactor further heightens the emphasis on Jerusalem with the final change to the oracle (Fishbane 1985: 473). In 23:6, it was the promised royal heir whose name would be ‫‘ יהוה צדקנו‬Yahweh is our righteousness’, but here it is the city of Jerusalem that will be called by that name. As is widely recognized, in its original context ‫ יהוה צדקנו‬is most likely a play on the name of king Zedekiah (‫)צדקיהו‬, which means something along the lines of “my righteousness is Yahu,” a word play which either identified Zedekiah as the “righteous sprout” (Fishbane 1985: 472; Carroll 1989: 49; Holladay 1986: 619) or else suggested, by the reversal of the elements in the name, that the “righteous sprout” would be Zedekiah’s 8.  Sommer points out that, when Deutero-Isaiah “reformulates” Jeremiah’s prophecies, he often “omits Jeremiah’s references to the restoration of the Northern Kingdom or rewrites them to refer to the exiles from Judah” (1998: 46). 9.  The use of the two different prepositions, ‫ אל‬and ‫על‬, following “I spoke” in the second half of v. 14 may simply be a textual mistake, but if it is intentional it further lends to the idea that a restoration of the Northern Kingdom is not in mind—the word was spoken to [all] Israel but it is concerning only Judah (compare with 1 Kgs 2:18).

180

Matthew Sjöberg

opposite (Lundbom 2004: 175; Holladay 1986: 617). By applying the name not to the sprout but rather to the city, the redactor has eliminated the connection to Zedekiah. If this redaction took place in the late Exilic or early Postexilic Period, concern with Zedekiah would have faded to the background and the prospect of the restoration of Jerusalem would be far more relevant. Moreover, if this passage was composed at the time of the high priest Joshua in the early Postexilic Period, the similarity of ‫יהוה צדקנו‬ and the name of Joshua’s father, Jehozadak (‫)יהוצדק‬, may have suggested to the redactor a connection between this prophecy and the priesthood, which he explores in the remainder of the chapter. The redactor further alters the significance of the oracle of the legitimate sprout by juxtaposing it to what follows in the remainder of chap. 33. He explicitly connects the promise of a righteous sprout for David with the Davidic promises found in the Deuteronomistic History and asserts that this is part of an unbreakable, eternal covenant.

Oracle of the Continuing Monarchy and Priesthood: Jeremiah 33:17–18 The second oracle in this passage does not directly draw on any passage from the book of Jeremiah the way the first oracle did (although the wording is similar to that of the promise to the Rechabites in Jer 35:19 and to the condemnation of Jehoiachin in Jer 22:30) 10 but is rather inspired by the various formulations of the Davidic covenant found in Kings (1 Kgs 2:4; 8:25 [= 2 Chr 6:16]; 9:5 [= 2 Chr 7:18]). In particular, the wording of the Davidic promise found in 1 Kgs 8:25 is the basis for the oracle in Jer 33:17–18. 11 In 1 Kgs 8:25, in the context of Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the temple, Solomon reminds Yahweh of the promise he made to David concerning the perpetuation of his royal line. The relevant portion of that verse reads: ‫לא יכרת לך איש מלפני ישב על כסא ישראל‬ There will not lack a man for you (David) before me sitting upon the throne of Israel. 10.  The similarity may have suggested to the redactor the appropriateness of drawing on this particular formulation of the Davidic covenant. Also, in 33:17–18 the message is the reverse of the message in the condemnation of Jehoiachin. This sort of reversal, using an original oracle’s words to convey the opposite meaning, is one of the techniques used by Deutero-Isaiah in alluding to Jeremiah and other texts (Sommer 1998: 36–37). 11.  The other two passages do not contain the words ‫‘ מלפני‬from before me’ or ‫‘ ישב‬sitting’.

Redaction of Jeremiah 33:14–26

181

The compiler of this oracle in Jeremiah interpreted this sentence in 1 Kings as two distinct promises: (1) there will not lack for you a man ‫‘ מלפני‬before me’ and (2) there will not lack for you one who sits on the throne of Israel. The reworked oracle reads: ‫כי כה אמר יהוה לא יכרת לדוד איש ישב על כסא בית ישראל‬ ‫ולכהנים הלוים לא יכרת איש מלפני מעלה עולה ומקטיר מנחה ועשה זבח כל‬ ‫הימים‬ For thus says Yahweh, “There will never lack for David a man sitting upon the throne of the house of Israel, and for the Levitical priests there shall not lack someone before me offering up burnt offerings, sending grain offerings up in smoke, and performing sacrifice every day.”

By grounding the oracle of the “righteous sprout” in this thoroughly Deuteronomistic promise, the redactor reveals himself to be an intellectual descendant of a Deuteronomistic school, or at the very least aware of the Deuteronomistic leanings of the book of Jeremiah. However, he has combined Deuteronomistic ideals with a greater emphasis on the priesthood similar to that found in exilic and postexilic writings. 12 In v. 17, the redactor slightly alters the form of the promise to David, changing “Israel” to “the house of Israel.” The phrase “house of Israel” is common in the book of Jeremiah, appearing 14 times in the LXX and an additional 6 times in the MT, and it is used both to refer to the Northern Kingdom specifically (e.g., 3:18; 5:11; 31:31) and generally to all Israel (e.g., 5:15; 9:25; 10:1; 23:8; 31:33). 13 Here, the meaning remains the same as in 1 Kings and refers to all of Israel, not merely the now-defunct Northern Kingdom. The largest change made by the redactor is his application of the Davidic promise to the Levitical priesthood and his elaboration of what it means to have a man “before [Yahweh].” The phrase “Levitical priests” is certainly Deuteronomistic (Carroll 1986: 637) and reflects the redactor’s familiarity with that tradition. 14 Note that all the functions associated with the Levitical priests in v. 18 are sacrificial functions—there is no mention of the teaching roles of the priests. Holladay (1989: 228) points to the second item in the list of actions performed by the Levitical priests as an example of the “careless 12.  Compare with Zech 3:8; Sir 45:23–26. 13. C. Maier (2002: 194) notes that “house of Israel” together with “house of Judah” appears only in late additions to the book of Jeremiah, as here. 14.  In spite of the strong connections between Jeremiah and the Deuteronomistic History, the word Levite is only mentioned in Jeremiah three times (all in this passage), compared to more than 40 uses of the term ‫‘ כהן‬priest’.

182

Matthew Sjöberg

and inelegant­” Hebrew of this section. Because minḥah offerings are not typically burned it is unusual to use the verb ‫( קטר‬Hiphil) ‘make go up in smoke’ with this noun; one typically finds a verb such as ‫‘ קרב‬bring near’ instead. There are, however, several passages that refer to a portion of the minḥah being turned into smoke (‫ )קטר‬on the altar (Lev 2:9, 11, 6:8, 9:17, Num 5:26), as well as a passage which refers generally to the minḥah being turned into smoke (2 Kgs 16:13, 15). Also, the minḥah of the priests was to be wholly burned (Lev 6:16; Snaith 1971: 620–22). The wording, therefore, is not an example of careless Hebrew but rather of an elliptical way to refer to the burning of the memorial portion of the offering, and it suggests that the redactor was familiar with the sacrificial regulations in Leviticus. The wording of these two promises, at first glance, appears to present a problem for the proposed exilic/postexilic date of composition. If this, in fact, was written after the destruction of Jerusalem, the passage seems to ignore the fact that there has not been a man sitting on the throne for David nor has any Levitical priest been able to offer the various sacrifices before Yahweh during the period when there was no temple. This, however, is exactly the reason that the redactor needs to provide comment on the Davidic promise. In the Persian period, the people would be wondering if Yahweh’s word guaranteeing the perpetuation of David’s line was still applicable after the Babylonian invasion. The redactor answers these questions with an emphatic “yes” by restating these earlier promises. While there was no Davidic monarch sitting on the throne at this time, the verb used in the promise, “to be cut off,” suggests a permanent cessation of Davidic rule, and that, in the redactor’s mind, was certainly not the situation. Why did the redactor feel it was necessary and proper to expand this promise to the Levitical priests? The initial promise was for David and for the political dimension of ancient Israelite society. The destruction of the political capital of Judah along with the exile of the Davidic kings Jehoiachin and Zedekiah put into jeopardy the truth of this promise, as well as the promise of Jer 23:5–6. It was not only the continuation of monarchy that was jeopardized with the Babylonian invasion but it was also the continuation of Israelite worship of Yahweh that was jeopardized. In order for Judah to regain its identity as a nation it was necessary for these two pillars of society, the palace and the temple, to be restored. In its original context, Yahweh’s promise to David that his descendants will always sit on his throne was a conditional promise. If David’s descendants chose not to follow in their ancestor’s footsteps by obeying the com-

Redaction of Jeremiah 33:14–26

183

mands of Yahweh, then the promise would not hold. 1 Kgs 8:25 follows the report of Yahweh’s promise to David with the condition, “if only your sons guard their ways, to walk before me just like you [David] walked before me.” The redactor of Jeremiah 33 purposefully chose not to include this ominous condition and instead emphatically asserts that these promises are unconditional by adding the last phrase, ‫‘ כל הימים‬all the days’ and following this oracle with what follows in vv. 19–26 (Laato 1997: 166). 15 The common phrase “all the days” is especially appropriate for the redactor to use here in that it is found in two Deuteronomistic passages that promise a perpetual priesthood (Deut 18:5 and 1 Sam 2:35) and in Jeremiah’s oracle promising the preservation of the Rechabites (Jer 35:19). Just as the promise of the continuation of the Davidic dynasty is part of Yahweh’s covenant with David, so this promise of the perpetuity of the Levitical priesthood is envisioned as part of a covenant between Yahweh and the Levites. In the next section the redactor reflects on these two covenants.

Perpetual Davidic and Levitical Covenants: Jeremiah 33:19–26 The final two oracles do not quote verbatim from any passage either within Jeremiah or from another source. Nonetheless, thematic similarities and a large amount of lexical overlap make it clear that these oracles are at least inspired by, if not derived from, Jer 31:35–37, which also consists of two oracles (see Holladay 1989: 228–29; Thompson 1980: 598). Like chap. 33, these earlier poetic oracles are part of the book of consolation. These oracles state that Israel will stop being a nation only when the sun, moon, and stars pass away, and Yahweh will reject Israel only if the heights of heaven and the depths of earth can be measured. Thus says Yahweh, who gives the sun to light daytime (‫)יומם‬, the fixed order (‫ )חקת‬of the moon and stars to light the night (‫)לילה‬, who stirs up the sea so its waves roar—Yahweh of hosts is his name. If (‫ )אם‬this fixed order (‫ )החקים‬departs from before me (‫—)מלפני‬oracle of Yahweh—then (‫ )גם‬the seed (‫ )זרע‬of Israel will stop being (‫ )מהיות‬a nation (‫ )גוי‬before me for all days (‫)כל הימים‬. Thus says Yahweh, if (‫ )אם‬the heavens can be measured for their height and if the foundations of the earth can be plumbed for their depth, then (‫ )גם‬I, myself, will reject (‫ )אמאס‬all the seed (‫ )זרע‬of Israel on account of all that they have done—oracle of Yahweh. (Jer 31:35–37) 15. W. Brueggemann (1998: 319) notes that the unconditional nature of this promise is unusual in the Jeremianic tradition, pointing out that “Jeremiah refuses to regard the monarch either as guaranteed or as important.”

184

Matthew Sjöberg

Jer 33:19–26 uses similar imagery to make a different point: The word of Yahweh came to Jeremiah saying, thus says Yahweh, if (‫)אם‬ you can break my covenant with the day and my covenant with the night (‫ )הלילה‬so that daytime (‫ )יומם‬and night (‫ )לילה‬do not come in their time, then (‫ )גם‬my covenant with David, my servant, will be broken, so that there will not be (‫ )מהיות‬for him a son reigning upon his throne, and with the priestly Levites (‫ )הלוים הכהנים‬who serve me. Just as 16 the host (‫ )צבא‬of heaven cannot be counted or the sands of the sea measured, thus will I multiply the seed (‫ )זרע‬of David, my servant, and the Levites who serve me. The word of Yahweh came to Jeremiah saying, Have you not noticed what this people are speaking, saying “Two families which Yahweh chose, he has rejected (‫ )מאס‬them.” And my people they have spurned from continuing to be (‫ )מהיות‬a nation (‫ )גוי‬before them. Thus says Yahweh, if (‫ )אם‬my covenant with daytime (‫ )יומם‬and night (‫ )לילה‬are 17 not, [and if] I have not set up the fixed order (‫)חקות‬ of heaven and earth then (‫ )גם‬I will reject (‫ )אמאס‬the seed (‫ )זרע‬of Jacob and David, my servant, such that I will not take from his seed (‫ )זרע‬rulers­to 18 the seed (‫ )זרע‬of Abraham, Isaac, 19 and Jacob, for I will restore their fortunes and have mercy on them.

Two of the lexical similarities between the two passages deserve special attention. Both passages use the word ‫( יומם‬translated above as ‘daytime’), where one would typically expect ‫‘ יום‬day’. The word ‫ יומם‬typically means ‘daily’ but in a few rare instances seems to mean ‘daytime’ (for example in Jer 15:9 and Ezek 30:16), and this atypical meaning of the term seems necessary in 31:35 and 33:25. The redactor is influenced in his word choice by his source material. The second important lexical similarity is the use of ‫ גם‬to introduce the apodosis of a conditional sentence. This is an uncommon use of the particle, and outside Jer 33:21, 26 the only other places ‫ גם‬introduces an apodosis in the book of Jeremiah are both in the source passage, Jer 31:36–37. Outside Jeremiah, ‫ גם‬is only used this way in Gen 13:16 (in one of the promises to multiply Abraham’s offspring) and Zech 8:6. 16.  The MT has ‫ אשר‬instead of the expected ‫כאשר‬. Compare with Isa 54:9 (Lund­ bom 2004: 544). 17.  The Hebrew lacks a verb and the sentence is difficult as it stands. Perhaps ‫בריתי‬ ‘my covenant’ should be emended to ‫‘ בראתי‬I created’, and the sentence would read, “If I have not created daytime and night” (Bright 1965: 294; but see de Waard 2003: 141–42). 18.  This is an exceptional instance of ‫ אל‬being used with ‫‘ משל‬to rule’ instead of the expected ‫על‬. 19.  Note that Isaac here is spelled with a ‫ ש‬instead of the expected ‫צ‬. It is only spelled this way in the Hebrew Bible here and in Ps 105:9; Amos 7:9, 16.

Redaction of Jeremiah 33:14–26

185

With the redactor’s dependence on Jer 31:35–37 established, let us turn to an examination of how he uses this source material to compose the oracles in 33:19–26. First, he takes the idea that Israel’s identity as a nation is as secure as the existence and movements of the heavenly bodies and he applies that idea to the Davidic monarchy and the Levitical priesthood. There is no great leap of logic involved here for the redactor: like its ancient Near Eastern neighbors, Israel’s identity as a nation went handin-hand with the existence of its monarchy and its devotion to its national god. If Israel was never to cease being a nation, then it naturally follows that the Davidic monarchy, the only legitimate monarchy for the nation, and the Levitical priesthood, the only legitimate priesthood necessary for worshiping Yahweh, could never totally cease to exist. If Israel’s existence is as sure as the celestial bodies, so is the existence of the descendants of David and Levi. Second, even though the redactor takes the same unreal condition from chap. 31 and applies it to different groups, he does not explicate the condition in the same way. In 31:35, the unchanging nature of the sun, moon, and stars is introduced by stating that it was “Yahweh of hosts” who established them. In 33:20, the protasis for the condition is based not on the fact that Yahweh created the heavenly lights and their established movements but rather that he has a ‫‘ ברית‬covenant’ with day and night, which are governed by the celestial bodies. The underlying idea is still the same—the sun, moon, and stars consistently and regularly move through the heavens, bring day and night every 24 hours—but the redactor has changed the terminology so that he could introduce the notion of covenant into the discussion. 20 Just as the redactor extended the promise of Davidic descendants to the Levitical priesthood in 33:17–18, he also extends the notion of covenant to include a covenant with these same priests. While the idea of Yahweh’s covenant with the people of Israel is found throughout the Hebrew Bible and the notion of Yahweh’s covenant with David is also a common feature of these writings, there are very few passages which seem to imply a covenant with the Levitical priests (Num 25:12–13 [P], Deut 33:9, Neh 13:29, Mal 2:4–9), and most of those are late (Nicholson 1975: 89). Note that in 33:21 the expected expression ‫‘ הכהנים הלוים‬Levitical priests’ has had the word order reversed so that it reads ‫הלוים הכהנים‬ ‘priestly Levites’. This is the only time this phrase appears in the Hebrew Bible. Leuchter (2008: 78) argues that this unique wording is an example 20.  Although the term covenant is not used in 31:35–37, the immediate context is that of the new covenant Yahweh promises to make with Israel (vv. 31–34).

186

Matthew Sjöberg

of Seidel’s Law, by which the author is using a reversed word order to refer to an older text, and that the older text being referred to is the Deuteronomic legislation concerning Levites. Whether or not this is the case, it is interesting that in this oracle both the priestly Levites and the Levites who are not identified as priests are both identified as those who ‫ שרת‬with no distinction made between their duties. 21 Another extraordinary transference of a promise from one group to another takes place in 33:22. The juxtaposition in 31:35–37 of language describing the stars and the notion of measuring the heavens with “the seed of Israel,” as well as the discussion of “covenant” found just before that passage and also added to 33:19–26, led the redactor to consider another covenant which involved “stars” and “seed,” namely, the Abrahamic covenant. The pentateuchal influence returns again in v. 26 where the redactor talks about the “seed of Jacob” (here referring to the Israelites, in general) 22 and the “seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” (a broader designation which may include the neighboring peoples). The redactor applies Yahweh’s promise to multiply Abraham’s seed as numerous as the stars of the sky and the sand of the sea to both David and the Levites. This is extraordinary from several angles. Just like the redactor has done with this entire passage, here he has transferred specifically onto David and the Levites a promise that was initially applicable generally to all Israel (Lundbom 2004: 544). The idea that David’s descendants should become as numerous as the stars is particularly peculiar because there only needs to be one Davidic descendant to rule at a time (Lust 1994: 43), but the force of the promise is that David’s line will not die out, as it surely must have seemed was happening with the exile of Jehoiachin’s family and the death of Zedekiah’s sons. Multiplying the Levites 23 makes a bit more sense, but again, there is a limit to the number of Levites who can serve in the temple in any given generation. If the redactor is writing at a time when the continuation of the Davidic line is in doubt and when there are not enough 21.  It may be that the redactor used the phrases “Levitical priests,” “priestly Levites,” and “Levites” to reflect the priesthood as he envisioned it in the days of Jeremiah and is indicating nothing about the configuration of the priesthood in his days. 22.  While “Jacob” can be used to refer specifically to the Northern Kingdom, here Yahweh is talking about raising up rulers from this seed, and legitimate rulers only come from Judah. 23.  Note that here the redactor simply uses the word Levites instead of “Levitical priests” or “priestly Levites.” If this change in nomenclature is not merely stylistic, this may be further evidence that the redactor is composing at a time when the “Levites” were a separate group from the Zadokite or Aaronide (and also Levitical) priests. Zadok and Aaron are never mentioned in the book of Jeremiah.

Redaction of Jeremiah 33:14–26

187

Levites to fully serve the temple, then this promise makes some sense. Whether or not this is the case, the application of this promise to the monarchy and the priesthood heightens the sense that Israelite national identity depends on the existence of a legitimate king and legitimate priests. With the Babylonian exile, it would have seemed that the promise of Jer 31:36—that Israel would never cease to be a nation—had failed to be fulfilled. 24 With the destruction of the temple and the deportation of the last Davidic king, had not Israel ceased to be a nation? The redactor shows his awareness of this problem in 33:24. He puts the accusation in the mouths of ‫‘ העם הזה‬this people’ that Yahweh has rejected “the two families which [he] had chosen,” and as a result Israel is seen as no longer being a nation. It is not entirely clear from the context if “this people” is supposed to refer to Israelites or to some other group (Lundbom 2004: 544; compare with Carroll 1986: 638). If it is some other group, only by dating the composition of the verse could we potentially identify them. Most commentators identify “the two families which Yahweh had chosen” as the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah (for example, Carroll 1986: 638, Nicholson 1975: 89, Thompson 1980: 603), however in the context this identification is highly unlikely. In 33:14–16, the redactor seems to have exorcised the notion of hope for a restored Northern Kingdom in his reworking of the earlier oracle, even replacing a reference to “Israel” with a reference to “Jerusalem.” Throughout this section, the redactor’s concern has been solely with Judah and Jerusalem, giving little if any thought to Judah’s northern neighbor. Since v. 17, the only two families that the redactor has mentioned are the families of David and Levi, and the “seed” of David and Levi (a “family”-oriented notion) has just been discussed in v. 22. Moreover, this entire section bases the identity of Israel as a nation on the continued existence of a Davidic king and a Levitical priesthood (see Lust 1994: 43). It seems best, then, to identify the two families as the descendants of David and the descendants of Levi (Laato 1997: 167; compare with Lundbom 2004: 545). The redactor’s response to the apparent nonfulfillment of 31:36 is intriguing. He does not repeat Yahweh’s promise that he will never reject Israel as a nation. Instead Yahweh promises that he will never stop providing rulers for the people from the descendants of David and Jacob(!). He makes no mention here of the Levitical priesthood and is only concerned 24.  Collins (1995: 27) points to the apparent non-fulfillment of biblical promises as “one factor that contributed to messianic speculation. The promises must be fulfilled. If they are not seen to be fulfilled in the past or present, the fulfillment must be projected into the future.”

188

Matthew Sjöberg

about the continuation of the Davidic monarchy. The reason that the redactor can be confident that Yahweh will continue to raise up leaders from David’s seed is that Yahweh has promised ‫‘ אשיב שבותם‬I will restore the fortunes’ of the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. If this was written in the Postexilic Period, then the work of the priesthood would already have been reestablished as the Second Temple was being constructed, but the Davidic monarchy had not been reestablished. It would be by restoring this monarchy that Yahweh would “restore their fortunes.” The phrase ‫‘ אשיב שבותם‬restore their fortunes’ is used frequently throughout the book of consolation (Jeremiah 30–33) and serves as a Stichwort tying the diverse oracles of this collection together (Lundbom 2004: 369). 25 By placing this phrase at the end of 33:26, the redactor is demonstrating his awareness of this discrete section of the book of Jeremiah and is placing his oracles firmly within that tradition of restoration promises.

Conclusions There are a number of clues throughout the addition of Jer 33:14–26 that suggest a possible time period in which this section was composed. The replacement of “Jerusalem” for “Israel,” and the emphasis on Judah and Jerusalem in vv. 14–16 point to a time when the hopes of the people were turned towards that holy city, such as in the late Exilic and early Postexilic Period. That the redactor omitted the phrase “he will reign as king” in his retelling of the promise of a Davidic sprout could be seen to reflect a period when Judah was ruled by a foreign power, such as the Persians under Cyrus and Darius, or later under Hellenistic rule, which was benevolent enough that the people were not actively seeking independence. Also, if Zerubbabel is a potential candidate for the identity of this Sprout, he certainly was not reigning as king but was merely serving as governor. The redactor’s choice to begin this section with the prophecy concerning the “righteous sprout” may also give us a clue to the time of composition. In the book of Zechariah, that prophet twice prophesies about a person called the ‫‘ צמח‬Sprout’ (often translated ‘Branch’ in the English versions). In Zechariah, Yahweh tells the high priest Joshua that he will bring forth his servant the “Sprout” (3:8), and this “Sprout” will be responsible for building the temple of Yahweh (6:12). A number of schol25. W. Brueggemann (2006: 129) notes that one of the effects of the exile was an increased focus among the Israelite community on the “depths of compassion in the character of God.”

Redaction of Jeremiah 33:14–26

189

ars think that “Sprout” in these passages is a reference to Zerubbabel, the governor of Judah in the early Postexilic Period and possibly a descendant of David, and Zerubbabel is indeed one of the men the writers­ of Ezra credits with helping to rebuild the temple (see, for example, Petersen 1984: 210–11, 273–78). Zechariah’s relatively cryptic prophecies about the “Sprout” seem to presume a familiarity with the earlier oracle of Jeremiah in 23:5–6 (Meyers 1987: 203). This situation would provide the perfect opportunity for the redactor of Jeremiah to revisit this oracle concerning the “Sprout” and to update it such that its relevance for the redactor’s own day is clear. 26 In revisiting the prophecy of the “Sprout,” the redactor adds to this Davidic promise, various promises concerning the priesthood. 27 Again, the early Postexilic Period fits well with such a close association of Davidic and priestly material. Zech 6:9–13 seems to imply a situation in which the high priest Joshua is sharing power with a Davidic figure, possibly Zerubbabel. Even if this is not the meaning of that passage in Zechariah, the books of Ezra, Haggai, and Zechariah depict a time when the (possibly Davidic) governor Zerubbabel and the high priest Joshua were both important figures in the life of the people of Judah. By placing unconditional promises to the Levitical priesthood next to these promises to the Davidic monarchy, and by speaking of these promises as “covenants,” the redactor may be reflecting a situation in which the priesthood was nearly as important an idea as the monarchy. 28 At a time when the line of David at best had only the power of the governor of the small province of Judah and at worst was nothing more than an idea, it would be important for the redactor to show how promises concerning a revived monarchy and promises guaranteeing the people a national identity applied to a situation in which the priesthood exerted real authority (see Collins 1995: 31). The omission of any mention of the priesthood in Jer 33:26 which promises a restoration of Davidic rule suggests that the priesthood had already been restored. 29 26. M. Sweeney (2001: 320–21), dating both Jer 23:5–6 and 33:14–17 in the Postexilic Period, sees these passages as attempts to paint Zerubbabel as a Josianic figure. 27.  Baldwin (1964: 93–97) notes that the passages in Zechariah concerning the “Sprout” are also in contexts concerning the priesthood. 28.  Laato (1997: 167) views Jer 33:14–26 as an attempt to “legitimate Joshua’s central role in Zerubbabel’s exodus and in the reorganization of the Jewish community.” 29. As Holladay (1989: 231) points out, the dual promises to David and the Levites later develops into an expectation of two messiahs as can be seen in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, in the writings of Qumran, and perhaps in the writings of the

190

Matthew Sjöberg

Another datum suggesting an early postexilic date for these oracles may be found in Yahweh’s statement that he will multiply the seed of the Levites (33:22). If the redactor’s use of the term Levites here, instead of “Levitical priests” or “priestly Levites,” reflects the postexilic division between priests and Levites (Cook 1995: 193–208), 30 then this promise would seem to indicate that there was a shortage of Levites in the redactor’s day. Such a shortage is the situation faced by Ezra in Ezra 8:15–19, and the number of Levites listed in both Ezra and Nehemiah is only 74 (Ezra 2:40, Neh 7:43). The corresponding promise to multiply David’s seed also makes sense at this time when the future of the Davidic line was in doubt. Why did the redactor feel the need to add 33:14–26 to the book of Jeremiah? The book of Jeremiah as a whole offers almost no passages of hope directed specifically at the Levitical priesthood. The only hopeful priestly passage is 31:15a—half a verse promising that the desires of the priests will be satisfied. Those who opposed the increase of influence that the priests were gaining in the Postexilic Period could point to this lack in Jeremiah and to the high frequency of judgment oracles against the priests to argue that the priests should not be making such gains in power­. 31 In a time when the priesthood was gaining in authority, as it did in the Postexilic Period, the redactor may have felt it necessary to make it explicitly clear within the text of Jeremiah that the book of Jeremiah’s lack of priestly hope did not in fact mean that Jeremiah envisioned a restored Israel without a restored priesthood. To address this need, the redactor composed a passage that demonstrated that the restoration promised to David and to all Israel also applied to the Levitical priesthood. Moreover, if a member of the Davidic line were in a position to exert power, prophecies of a renewed monarchy (such as in 23:5–6) without promises of a renewed priesthood would provide his supporters with an argument for an increase in his authority at the expense of the priests’ power. Zech 6:13 (‫‘ שלום תהיה בין שניהם‬there will be peace between the two of them’) seems to imply such a conflict between the (Davidic) Zerubbabel and the high priest Joshua. By placing restoration promises for the monarchy next to NT. For a discussion of two messiahs in the literature related to the Qumran sect, see J. Collins (1995: 74–95). For a further discussion of dual messianic expectation see Vawter (1962: 83–99). Buber (1949:175) noticed that Jeremiah says nothing about a future for the priesthood except here, another reason that this passage is probably postexilic. 30.  For a discussion of the distinction between priests and Levites in Chronicles, see G. Knoppers (1999: 49–72). Lust (1994: 40–41) thinks that the three different phrases are being used synonymously. 31.  Compare with the later opposition to the Jerusalem priesthood found in the Psalms of Solomon and in the writings of the Qumran community.

Redaction of Jeremiah 33:14–26

191

restoration promises for the priesthood, the redactor of our passage in Jeremiah is stating that Jeremiah’s voice in this conflict should be placed on the side of the peace prophesied by Zechariah. 32 Jer 33:14–26, the longest passage found in the MT but not in the LXX, provides an example of the types of additions a redactor might make to a prophetic book. The redactor’s additions draw heavily on the Jeremianic tradition already before him, and where he does not rely on that tradition he relies on material from the Deuteronomistic History, a tradition closely related to the text of Jeremiah. His addition is not a wholesale invention of new ideas, but is rather an attempt to interpret properly the earlier Jeremiah prophecies in light of the new situation faced by the restoration community. 32.  Lust (1994: 45) notes that the additions to the MT of Jer 27:18–33 serve to combine the priestly house with the royal house, a combination not unlike that found in 33:14–26. A more careful examination of all the additions to the LXX of Jeremiah is needed.

Bibliography Baldwin, J. G. 1964 Tsemach as a Technical Term in the Prophets. Vetus Testamentum 14: 93–97. Bright, J. 1965 Jeremiah. Anchor Bible 21. New York: Doubleday. Brueggemann, W. 1998 A Commentary on Jeremiah: Exile and Homecoming. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 2006 Like Fire in the Bones: Listening for the Prophetic Word in Jeremiah. Minneapolis: Fortress. Buber, M. 1949 The Prophetic Faith, trans. C. Witton-Davies. New York: Macmillan. Carroll, R. P. 1986 Jeremiah: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster. 1989 Jeremiah. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Collins, J. J. 1995 The Scepter and the Star: the Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature. New York: Doubleday. Cook, S. L. 1995 Innerbiblical Interpretation in Ezekiel 44 and the History of Israel’s Priesthood. Journal of Biblical Literature 114: 193–208. Cummins, P. 1940 A Test Case in Text Transmission: Jeremias 33:14–26. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 2: 15–27.

192

Matthew Sjöberg

Fishbane, M. A. 1985 Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. New York: Clarendon. Grothe, J. F. 1981 An Argument for the Textual Genuineness of Jeremiah 33:14–26 (Massoretic Text). Concordia Journal 7: 188–91. Holladay, W. L. 1986 Jeremiah 1. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress. 1989 Jeremiah 2. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress. Job, J. B. 2006 Jeremiah’s Kings: A Study of the Monarchy in Jeremiah. Society for Old Testament Studies Monograph Series. Aldershot, VT: Ashgate. Knoppers, G. 1999 Hierodules, Priests, or Janitors? The Levites in Chronicles and the History of the Israelite Priesthood. Journal of Biblical Literature 118: 49–72. Laato, A. 1997 A Star Is Rising: The Historical Development of the Old Testament Royal Ideology and the Rise of the Jewish Messianic Expectations. International Studies in Formative Christianity and Judaism. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Leuchter, M. 2008 The Polemics of Exile in Jeremiah 26–45. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lust, J. 1994 The Diverse Text Forms of Jeremiah and History Writing with Jer 33 as a Test Case. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 20: 31–48. Lundbom, J. R. 2004 Jeremiah 21–36: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 21B. New York: Doubleday. Maier, C. 2002 Jeremia als Lehrer der Tora: Soziale Gebote des Deuteronomiums in Fortschreibungen des Jeremiabuches. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 196. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Meyers, C., and Meyers, E. 1987 Haggai, Zechariah 1–8. Anchor Bible 25B. New York: Doubleday. McKane, W. 1986 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah. 2 vols. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Nicholson, E. W. 1971 Preaching to the Exiles: A Study of the Prose Tradition in the Book of Jeremiah. New York: Schocken. 1975 The Book of the Prophet Jeremiah: Chapters 26–52. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Parke-Taylor, G. H. 2000 The Formation of the Book of Jeremiah: Doublets and Recurring Phrases. Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.

Redaction of Jeremiah 33:14–26

193

Petersen, D. L. 1984 Haggai and Zechariah 1–8: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster. Pomykala, K. 1995 The Davidic Dynasty Tradition in Early Judaism: Its History and Significance for Messianism. Atlanta: Scholars. Porter, S. E. 2007 The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Sharp, C. J. 2003 Prophecy and Ideology in Jeremiah: Struggles for Authority in the DeuteroJeremianic Prose. New York: T. & T. Clark. Snaith, N. H. 1971 Jeremiah 33:18. Vetus Testamentum 21: 620–22. Sommer, B. D. 1998 A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40–66. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. Sweeney, M. A. 2001 King Josiah of Judah: The Lost Messiah of Israel. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Thompson, J. A. 1980 The Book of Jeremiah. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Thiel, W. 1973 Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. 1981 Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 26–45. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Tov, E. 1981 Some Aspects of the Textual and Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah. Pp. 145–67 in Le Livre de Jérémie: Le Prophète: et Son Milieu les Oracles et Leur Transmission, ed. P.-M. Bogaert. Leuven: Leuven University Press. 1992 Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress. Vawter, B. 1962 Levitical Messianism and the New Testament. Pp. 83–99 in The Bible in Current Catholic Thought, ed. J. L. McKenzie. New York: Herder. Waard, J. 2003 A Handbook on Jeremiah. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Wessels, W. J. 1991 Jeremiah 33:15–16 as a Reinterpretation of Jeremiah 23:5–6. Her­vormde Teologiese Studies 47: 231–46.

Breaking an Eternal Covenant Isaiah 24:5 and Persian-Period Discourse about the Covenant J. Todd Hibbard University of Detroit Mercy

As a metaphor for expressing the relationship between ancient Israel/ Judah and Yhwh, covenant represents one of the more theologically significant ideas in the Hebrew Bible and ancient Israelite religion. 1 The origin of the idea in Israel is disputed (Nicholson 1986; Oden 1987: 429– 49; Mayes and Salters 2003; Koch 2008), but its appearance throughout the ancient Near East at various times and places is well-documented (McCarthy 1978). Scholars have been particularly impressed with the formal similarities between the Hittite and Assyrian models (themselves different in certain respects) on the one hand and the biblical covenants on the other (Koch 2008; Mendenhall 1992: 1:1179–1202; Weinfeld 1972: 59–157). Although there are disagreements among interpreters about which covenant antecedent represents the best analogue for understanding Israel’s own appropriation and development of this idea, it is clear that by the Persian-­period covenant as a literary form and religious idea was well known to the practitioners of Yhwh religion. 2 Ironically, however, the diversity of texts featuring covenant contributes to the difficulty interpreters face in identifying precisely what is understood by covenant in this period (Bautch 2009). Without rehearsing in detail the contours of the biblical portrayals of covenant, we should recall that it is not a monolithic expression. The term and idea are developed with reference to Sinai/Horeb, David, Abraham, and Noah, just to name the more significant appearances. Additionally, it is used in diverse ways by different 1.  Outside the Hebrew Bible, covenant is mentioned in the Ketef Hinnom inscription, usually dated to the late 7th century B.C.E. See Barkay et al. 2004: 41–71. 2.  For biblical texts dated no earlier than the Persian period that develop covenantal terminology and ideas, see Malachi, Zechariah, Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah passim; later still, see Daniel 9, 11.

195

196

J. Todd Hibbard

authors, especially in, but not limited to, the Pentateuch. 3 To clarify the biblical presentation of covenant, then, it is necessary to examine each text or group of texts on their own before drawing broader conclusions. To this end, this study takes up one of the more puzzling references to covenant in the Persian period: Isa 24:5. 4 This verse reads, And the earth is polluted because of its inhabitants; For they have transgressed laws (‫)תורת‬, Altered 5 a statute (‫)חק‬, Broken the perpetual covenant (‫)ברית עולם‬.

The passage is noteworthy for several reasons but captures our attention in this study because of its reference to a ‫ברית עולם‬, a perpetual or eternal covenant. In the following, I wish to address two questions: (1) How is this passage related to the other references in Isaiah that mention a ‫ברית‬ ‫עולם‬, if at all? (2) What is its contribution to Persian-period discourse about the covenant? As I hope to show in what follows, these two questions are related, but they have rarely been taken up in the scholarly literature.

Isaiah 24:5 among the Covenant References in the Hebrew Bible The composite nature of the book of Isaiah results in some of the chronologically latest material appearing long before the canonical end of 3.  Just a sampling of the texts that use ‫ ברית‬in the Pentateuch includes Genesis 9, 15, 17; Exodus 19, 24, 31, 34; Leviticus 26; Deuteronomy 4, 29, and 31. 4.  Dating Isaiah 24–27 has proved to be incredibly difficult, largely because of the lack of precise historical references in the section. Suggestions since the discovery of the Isaiah materials at Qumran have ranged from the 8th century B.C.E. to the 2nd century B.C.E. In light of the difficulties these chapters pose for dating, it seems the best one can hope for is elevating a possibility to a probability. To this end, W. Beuken has recently argued that this material dates probably to the Persian period. His argument is based first on what he calls “the dominant universalizing perspective” (“die vorherrschende universalistische Perspektive”) and second on citations and allusions to earlier material from the prophets and elsewhere in these chapters. He also expresses doubts about attempts to date the material on the basis of references to the anonymous city in 24:10, which he thinks is likely a literary construct. This construct, however, is derived from the memory of Babylon’s fall in 539 B.C.E. in his view. As such, he thinks that these chapters are likely from earlier rather than later in the Persian period (and certainly before the Hellenistic era). In this paper, I follow Beuken’s position. Several other scholars have also noted these chapters take up earlier texts from both within Isaiah and elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible and reuse them in crafting a prophetic message that fits the Persian-period context best. For an overview of the dating and intertextual issues, see Beuken 2007: 313–4; Nitsche 2006: 48–50; Bosshard-Nepustil 2005: 248–58; Scholl 2001: 1–35; Polaski 2001: 51–62; Berges 1998: 178–98; Sweeney 1996: 316–20. 5.  Read Piel for Qal; cf. HALOT 1:321.

Isaiah 24:5 and Persian-Period Discourse

197

the book (that is, Isaiah 66). This is the case, many have argued, with Isaiah 24–27, a discrete four-chapter section frequently mislabeled the “Isaiah Apocalypse.” 6 The opening chapter of this four-chapter section depicts anticipated worldwide catastrophe brought about by Yhwh, affecting the earth itself and its inhabitants. People are scattered (24:1), and indeed few remain (24:6); social distinctions are effaced (24:2); and there is an outcry over the diminished quality of life (24:7–11); attempts to escape the disaster are futile (24:17–18). The earth’s “face” is twisted (24:1); it is plundered (24:3); its agriculture and viticulture suffer (24:4, 7). A dire and calamitous state of affairs is portrayed. This disaster is construed as a curse (‫ )אלה‬that devours the earth (24:6). In the final analysis, the text reports that the earth’s demise is total (24:19–20): The earth is utterly broken, the earth is torn asunder, the earth is violently shaken. The earth staggers like a drunkard, it sways like a hut; its transgression lies heavy upon it, and it falls, and will not rise again.

What has led to this worldwide disaster? Its cause is spelled out in Isa 24:5, where, as mentioned above, one reads of the broken perpetual covenant, a violated statute, and transgressed laws. As is common in the Hebrew Bible, cosmological, ecological, and social destruction is ascribed theological coordinates. These references to laws, statute, and covenant naturally prompt interpreters to ask about the identity of these elements, and in so doing, most scholars have focused on the identity of the ‫ברית עולם‬. Analyses of this text have generally looked to the earlier covenantal traditions in the Hebrew Bible to understand the covenant mentioned here. 7 This is methodologically reasonable because this late text is enigmatic and appears in a section of Isaiah that exegetes agree draws on other material­ 6.  For a thorough overview of Isaiah 24–27, including why these chapters do not constitute an apocalypse, see Beuken 2007: 310–414. The evidence for recognizing this material as an independent textual unit in Isaiah is generally well-known, so there is no need to rehearse it all here. Suffice it to say that Isa 28:1 clearly appears to be the beginning of a new and independent section, while Isa 13–23, the so-called oracles against the nations, are identifiable as a separate collection. The internal coherence of Isaiah 24–27 is left to the side for purposes of this study. 7.  For a more complete discussion of the positions taken by other scholars on this issue, see Hibbard 2006: 64–68. It is worth noting that typical treatments of covenant in the Hebrew Bible have tended to ignore this passage, perhaps because it is anomalous in many ways.

198

J. Todd Hibbard

(e.g., Beuken 2007: 313). Additionally, the Hebrew Bible contains a rich and varied discussion about covenant, including 18 references in all to a ‫ברית עולם‬. 8 Thus, many have seen in Isaiah 24 allusions to one or another of these earlier covenantal traditions. Perhaps the most frequently mentioned reference is to the Noahic covenant of Gen 9:8–17 (Mason 2007: 177–98; Childs 2001: 179; Vermeylen 1977: 353; Kaiser 1974: 183; Rudolph 1933: 31). In this passage, God establishes a covenant not to destroy the earth and all humanity by means of a flood again. Gen 9:16 uses ‫ ברית עולם‬to describe this covenant, the sign of which is a bow in the clouds. The worldwide dimension of this covenant has suggested to many that Isaiah 24 is re-appropriating this earlier tradition and arguing that its provisions have come undone (Blenkinsopp 2000: 351–52). 9 Recently, Bosshard-Nepustil (2005: 248–59; see also Berges 1998: 181–84) has explored the connections between Isaiah 24–27 and Genesis 6–9 and concluded that the Isaiah text is not just referencing this text, but, in fact, offers a specific new interpretation of Genesis 6–9. He agrees with the three connections between these texts usually cited by scholars– the opened heavenly windows (Isa 24:18; Gen 7:11), the command to hide in an enclosed shelter (Isa 26:20; Gen 6:18; 7:1, 7, 13, and 16), and, most importantly for our purposes, the “eternal covenant” (Isa 24:5; Gen 9:8–17). In his view, however, the associations are more extensive than this and indicative of a more significant exegetical connection. 10 He sees in the flood narrative a literary and theological pattern of world/flood/ judgment that is taken up and reinterpreted by Isaiah 24–27. 11 While some aspects of his interpretation are less than convincing, he demonstrates successfully that the author of Isaiah 24–27 does know and re-interpret Genesis 6–9. Given the increasingly common position that much or all of Genesis 1–11, including the flood narrative, stems from the Exilic or early Postexilic Period (late 6th to 5th centuries; Gerstenberger 2011: 164–70), the idea that Isaiah 24–27 offers an interpretation of Genesis 6–9 permits the suggestion that this may be part of a larger dialogue about covenant in 8.  See Gen 9:16; 17:7, 13, 19; Exod 31:16; Lev 24:8; 2 Sam 23:5; Isa 24:5; 55:3; 61:8; Jer 32:40; 50:5; Ezek 16:60; 37:26; Ps 105:10; 1 Chr 16:17; cf. also Num 18:19; 25:13. For a recent study of this idea in the Pentateuch, see Mason 2008. 9.  Blenkinsopp goes on to argue that though the covenant reference has Genesis 9 in view, the Isaiah text understands ‫ ברית עולם‬differently from Priestly author. 10. For example, he reads the divine commitment to continue the yearly cycle in Gen 8:22 as reflected symbolically in various elements of Isa 24:1–20 (excluding vv. 13–16a). This part of his exposition can only be described as unconvincing. 11.  He dates the text near the events surrounding the upheaval in the time of the Diadochi (ca. 312/11 B.C.E.), a date that I find too late.

Isaiah 24:5 and Persian-Period Discourse

199

this period. It must be noted, however, that Bosshard-Nepustil’s treatment of the connection between the two does not lay a great deal of stress on how Isaiah 24–27 interprets the ‫ ברית עולם‬common to the two. As such, his study is a helpful starting point, but one that requires us to proceed in a different direction. 12 Isaiah 24 includes additional elements that force one to recognize that other covenantal expressions appear to be in the background as well. For example, 24:5 contains references to ‫ תורה‬and ‫חק‬, two terms that are connected most clearly with the Mosaic covenant, especially as formulated in Deuteronomy. 13 Additionally, as noted earlier, 24:6 indicates that a “curse” (‫ )אלה‬consumes the earth. This language points toward Deuteronomy and the covenantal formulations there. 14 As such, some scholars have attempted to argue that the reference to covenant here invokes Deuteronomy and the Mosaic covenant most clearly (Johnson 1988). Those inclined to view the Isaiah text from this perspective also argue that the destruction is limited to Israel (that is, is not universal) and should be associated with the events of 586 B.C.E. The most sustained attempt to come to grips with the full import of this phrase appears in the work of D. Polaski (2001: 95–145; 1998: 55– 73). Polaski employs a hermeneutic that utilizes notions of intertextuality to interpret the meaning of the ‫ ברית עולם‬in Isaiah 24. 15 This allows him to see, correctly, elements drawn from a network of texts that employ multiple covenant traditions (e.g., P, Ezekiel, and Deuteronomy). This stands in contrast to those who restrict themselves to a search for only one 12.  One other brief note: Isa 54:9–10 also call attention to the Noah narrative in Genesis. If this text is dated to the Exilic or early Postexilic Period, it offers further confirmation that biblical authors of this period were using Noah and the flood narrative as a source from which to draw theological meaning. 13. On ‫תורה‬, see Deut 1:5; 4:8, 44; 17:11, 18; 27:3, 8, 26; 28:58, 61; 29:20, 28; 30:10; 31:9, 11–12, 24, 26; 32:46; 33:4. For ‫חק‬, see Deut 4:1, 5–6, 8, 14, 40, 45; 5:1, 31; 6:1, 17, 20, 24; 7:11; 11:32–12:1; 16:12; 17:19; 26:16–17; 27:10. Of course, Isa 24:5 uses the plural ‫תורת‬, which is comparatively rare in Hebrew Bible, appearing only 9 times: Gen 26:5; Exod 16:28; 18:20; Lev 26:46; Isa 24:5; Ezek 43:11; 44:5, 24; and Neh 9:13. These references are to diverse laws usually clarified by the context. Only Nehemiah 9 might reasonably refer to the contents of Torah as such (though see Lev 26:46), but even this is not clear. Isa 24:5 is the only passage that mentions a ‫ ברית‬and ‫ תורת‬together. 14.  See Deut 29:19, 20; 30:7. The term ‫ אלה‬can also mean “oath,” and it has that sense also in Deut 29:11, 13, and 18. 15.  Definitions of intertextuality are notoriously difficult to pin down, suggesting to many that it functions as an umbrella term under which various hermeneutical methodologies may be placed.

200

J. Todd Hibbard

antecedent covenant tradition. His argument draws attention both to the Mosaic dimensions of the covenant known primarily from Deuteronomy and to Priestly elements that highlight notions of sabbath, circumcision, and temple activity. The result is a compelling examination of how covenant functions in this text in light other covenant traditions in the early Postexilic Period. In particular, relying on the work of Foucault, he explores how Isaiah 24 participates in an “active negotiation with texts and/ or their antecedent traditions which may serve to undergird those texts’ authority” (Polaski 1998: 66). 16 The intertextual space becomes contested space in which the voices from disparate textual traditions collide. Each text’s authority must be balanced against other competing texts, resulting in a rich dialogue. We will return to Polaski’s work and this point in particular below. From the perspective of this study, it must be noted that Polaski does not treat other covenant traditions in Isaiah in relation to the covenant in Isaiah 24. Without denying the importance of the intertextual connections highlighted by Polaski’s study, it is necessary to move the discussion in that direction and consider the wider book of Isaiah.

Isaiah 24:5 and Covenant in Isaiah Isaiah 24 contains only one of several references to covenant in Isaiah. 17 Among them, Isaiah makes reference twice to a ‫ ברית עולם‬aside from Isa 24:5: Isa 55:3 and 61:8. 18 Surprisingly, commentators have ignored these texts in their interpretations of Isa 24:5. 19 The first of these, Isa 55:3, reads: 16.  The texts and traditions he has in mind are D and P, but the same could be said to apply to other texts, for example, Isaiah. 17.  See Isa 28:15, 18; 33:8; 42:6; 49:8; 54:10; 55:3; 56:4, 6; 59:21; and 61:8 for other uses of ‫ברית‬. Of course, Isaiah’s discussion of covenant goes beyond passages that include uses of ‫ברית‬. As Wildberger, among others, has discussed, the book invokes covenantal notions linked to Sinai or Moses, but without mentioning them specifically (see Isa 63:11–12). Additionally, it is clear that Deutero-Isaiah frequently references exodus traditions, but the exact role of the covenant is not clear in these references. See Wildberger 2002: 578–89. On the role of the Davidic covenant and Zion traditions, see Clements 2003: 39–69. 18.  There is one other case in which the text is in dispute. The MT, 1QIsaa, LXX and all other major versions of Isa 42:6 contain a passage in which the servant (v. 1) is given as a ‫ברית עם‬, “covenant to/of the people” (how to translate the phrase is unclear). However, 4QIsah reads ‫ברית עולם‬. This reading, though sensible, is doubtful. See Ulrich et al. 1997: 118. For an attempt to understand this text that recognizes the importance of the interplay between ‫ ברית עם‬and ‫ ברית עולם‬without reference to the Dead Sea Scrolls material, see Smith 1981: 241–43. 19.  Though it is impossible to date these two texts with certainty, it is probable that they both antedate Isaiah 24–27. Isaiah 61 is part of the literary core of Trito-Isaiah,

Isaiah 24:5 and Persian-Period Discourse

201

Incline your ear and come to me; listen, that you may live. I will cut a perpetual covenant (‫ )ברית עולם‬with you, the faithful mercies of David.

It is generally recognized that Isaiah 55 is a pivotal chapter in the book in that it functions as a transition between Deutero-Isaiah and Trito-Isaiah (Blenkinsopp 2002: 368). For our purposes, several things stand out about the verse in question from Isaiah 55. First, it contains the only reference to David in Isaiah 40–66. The passage alludes to the covenant with David (cf. 2 Samuel 7; 23; Psalms 89, 132), only to argue that its provisions have been “democratized” (Goldingay and Payne 2006: 373; Baltzer 2001: 470–71; Seybold 1972: 152–62). The special role outlined for David elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible is here reenvisioned and made applicable to the (post-) exilic community. That this reflects a period in which the Davidic monarchy was a thing of the past seems rather obvious; perhaps what is more surprising is that this text also contains no hope for the reestablishment of the Davidic throne. 20 In this case, covenant remains an operative paradigm, but the covenant participants have been reinterpreted substantially. Another reference to a ‫ ברית עולם‬in Isaiah appears in 61:8. Here, one reads: For I, Yhwh, love justice (‫)משפט‬ hate robbery (‫ )גזל‬and wrongdoing (‫;)עולה‬ generally identified as chaps. 60–62. These chapters are, in the view of nearly all commentators, the earliest part of Isaiah 56–66, and given its dependence on DeuteroIsaiah, should likely be dated to the early Postexilic Period (Stromberg 2011: 11–13; Smith 1995: 22–29, 173–86). Dating Isaiah 55 is more problematic, and scholars are divided consequently. The debate revolves around the relationship of Isaiah 55 to Isaiah 56–66 (and, to a lesser extent, Isaiah 40­–54). It is clear that the texts are closely related, especially Isaiah 55 and 60–62, but it is unclear which comes first. So, Blenkinsopp (2002: 368–69) argues that the author of Isaiah 55 knows both chaps. 40–54 and 56– 66, “in whatever state they existed at the time of writing” (p. 368). He does not specify a date for the material, however. On the other hand, most interpreters regard Isaiah 55 as preceding Isaiah 60–62 (e.g., see R. Albertz 2003: 428–33, who argues that Isaiah 55 precedes Isaiah 60–62 and, therefore, dates the chapter, as part of his second redaction of Deutero-Isaiah, to the end of the sixth or the beginning of the fifth century [p. 430]). It is beyond the scope of this essay to enter into this debate fully. For reasons explained below, the position taken here is that Isaiah 55 precedes Isaiah 60–62, both of which are understood as earlier compositions than Isaiah 24–27. 20.  Baltzer (2001: 471) goes so far as to say that the restoration of the monarchy is “inconceivable” for Deutero-Isaiah. See Jer 23:5–6 and 33:14–26 [MT] for another “prophetic” view of expectations regarding the Davidic monarchy in the era of its nonexistence.

202

J. Todd Hibbard

I will certainly give them their recompense, and I will cut a perpetual covenant (‫ )ברית עולם‬with them.

This passage appears in what is widely recognized as the core of TritoIsaiah, chaps. 60–62 (Westermann 1969: 296; Sekine 1989; Stromberg 2011: 11–13). Furthermore, it is also generally agreed that the author of these chapters has composed them, in part, by reinterpreting and alluding to earlier material, particularly Deutero-Isaiah. Thus, it comes as little surprise that many interpreters who date Isaiah 55 earlier than TritoIsaiah have recognized a connection between 61:8 and the earlier text in 55:3. In Isaiah, only these two texts speak of making or cutting an eternal covenant. Most recently, in a detailed and thorough study, Stromberg (2009: 242–55) has sought to demonstrate the nature of the relationship between Isaiah 55 and 61. He argues that Isa 61:8 is one part of a larger set of associations between Isaiah 60–62 and Isa 55:3. His principal conclusion is that Trito-Isaiah reinterpreted ‫חסדי דוד‬, “mercies of David,” in 55:3 with reference to the efforts to rebuild the temple and reestablish cultic life there. 21 On Stromberg’s reading, the reconstituted ‫ברית עולם‬ becomes one aspect of the discourse signaling renewed religious life in Persian Jerusalem. While the ‫ ברית עולם‬is not the primary focus in his study, Stromberg’s study verifies that the Persian period contributors to Isaiah continued to ruminate on the notion of covenant and its relevance for the reestablishment of temple life. In light of this discussion linking the two later texts featuring a perpetual covenant, is it possible to establish a connection between Isaiah 24 and these texts? It does not appear possible to associate them exegetically, that is, in the same way Stromberg has demonstrated for Isaiah 55 and 61. Indeed, the only direct verbal link between them is the use of ‫ברית עולם‬. However, as Polaski’s study has demonstrated, a broader intertextual relationship might be established on this basis. The phrase and its associated ideas were undoubtedly highly recognizable; indeed, three texts using this language in the same book suggests that there is an important dialogue about its meaning and implications in the later stages of Isaiah’s growth. The existence of these three texts in Isaiah demonstrates that the discussion about the ‫ ברית עולם‬did not yield monolithic conclusions but rather created a complex tapestry in which competing ideas about covenant and the community were allowed to exist in the intertextual space. 21.  He notes that, while this is not the intention of the author of Isaiah 55, Isaiah 60–62 appropriates the passage in precisely this direction as a way of making the earlier prophecy relevant in the new and different context.

Isaiah 24:5 and Persian-Period Discourse

203

As has been shown, Isaiah 55 and 61 emphasize the establishment of covenant as part of each one’s depiction of hope and renewal for the future of the community. Isaiah 55 insists that the demise of the Davidic monarchy was not fatal for the community life, by redirecting the notion of the Davidic covenant to the community. Isaiah 61 understands the construction of a perpetual covenant as an element of restoration that ultimately features city and temple reconstruction. The elevation of the status of the covenant participants in the eyes of the nations is also emphasized in this construal, an idea that builds on the image in 55:5 of nations (‫ )גוי‬running to Jerusalem. Indeed, the larger context of Trito-Isaiah includes a positive role for the nations themselves in the divine economy (e.g., Isa 56:3–8; 66:18–21). 22 Isaiah 24 tempers the enthusiasm about the existence of the ‫ ברית עולם‬and all that accompanies it, however. It notes that establishment of the perpetual covenant must be balanced by the possibility of its abrogation. The images of reconstruction attending covenant establishment in Isaiah 55 and, especially chap. 61, are countered with images of destruction in chap. 24. Moreover, Isaiah 24 picks up and uses specific imagery from Trito-Isaiah in order to drive home the contrast. 23 Both images exist as potentialities in Isaiah. To take one example: the city is imagined and portrayed in important but drastically different ways in both sets of texts. 24 The central theme of Isaiah 60–62 is the rebuilding of Jerusalem and its temple (Lau 1994: 22– 117). A portrait emerges that highlights the city’s return to life in splendorous terms. The ruined and devastated city is to be restored by its inhabitants (61:4), 25 but an even greater emphasis on foreigners leading the reconstruction effort appears at various intervals and is a consistent theme throughout these chapters (e.g., 60:10–16). A signal feature expressive of the new reality this introduces is found in the emphasis on renaming the city and its various features (60:14, 18; 62:2, 4, 12). The walls of the 22.  Trito-Isaiah’s view of the nations and/or foreigners is neither monolithic nor largely positive. The majority of references insist that the nations act as servants to the repatriated exiles. For a fuller discussion, see Blenkinsopp 2003. 23.  In what follows, the links are not verbal but thematic and imagistic. Their nonverbal nature does not, however, render the links any less real or significant in my estimation. 24.  In addition to the city theme, these three sets of texts also share imagery regarding agriculture/viticulture, joy, and people’s responses or reactions to Yhwh. 25.  Isa 61:4 speaks of renewing “ruined cities” (‫)ערי חרב‬. The plural reference to “cities” undoubtedly reflects the condition of Judah in the aftermath of the Babylonian assault of the early 6th century. This is confirmed by the archaeological evidence indicating widespread devastation around Jerusalem. For a recent assessment of the archaeological evidence from the Babylonian period, see Lipschits 2004: 185–92.

204

J. Todd Hibbard

new city are to be populated with prophets who remind (‫ )מזכרים‬Yhwh unceasingly of the divine obligation to reestablish (‫ )יכונן‬the city (62:6–7). The new condition expected for Jerusalem is repeatedly described as its “salvation” (60:16; 62:1, 11; cf. 60:18 [√‫)]ישע‬. This magnificent setting offers the context in which the ‫ ברית עולם‬is established. Isaiah 24–27 takes up the theme of the city as well, but the portrait that emerges is the opposite of that in Trito-Isaiah’s core. Isa 24:10 describes a “city of chaos” (‫ )קרית תהו‬that is broken (‫)נשברה‬: houses are shut up (‫)סגר‬ so that no one can enter. In 24:12, one reads that the gates of the city are smashed into ruins (‫ )שאיה‬and only devastation (‫ )שמה‬remains. There is an outcry (‫ )צוחה‬over wine, presumably because there is none (24:11). The emphasis in 24:2 highlighting the eradication of social and economic distinctions should also be read as an indication of the chaotic conditions in the city. Further descriptions of a chaotic city that has become the object of divine destruction are found in 25:2, 26:5, and 27:10. Unlike Isaiah 60–62, the specific identity of this city is never disclosed. What is clear, however, is the link between the wreckage of the city and broken covenant. Just as the institution of the ‫ ברית עולם‬in 61:8 accompanies the restoration of city life, so the abrogation of this covenant in 24:5 signals the end of life in the city. Given Isaiah 24’s concern to situate the city within the wider context of the worldwide devastation, its failure to name the city in question is not altogether unexpected. The contrasting images of these texts also point to a discussion about the value of the reestablished temple. As mentioned above, the established ‫ ברית עולם‬in Isa 61:8 combines with Isaiah 60–62’s emphasis on the rebuilt temple (Stromberg 2009). 26 Repeatedly, these chapters envision the prospect of a physically reconstructed temple featuring reinvigorated cultic practice (e.g., 60:7, 9–14). Elsewhere in Trito-Isaiah, formerly excluded foreigners are included in the temple cult (e.g., Isa 56:3–8; 66:18–21 27; cf. 2:2–4; 19:16–25). The importance of that inclusion for understanding covenant in this latter part of Isaiah is clear: Isaiah 61 allows the reader to consider the possibility that the ‫ ברית עולם‬is being constructed not just with Judahites but with those among the nations who have “joined 26. The argument here that attempts to associate Isaiah 24 with Isaiah 61 (or 60–62) might suggest interpreting the city here as a reference only to Jerusalem. I do not think this is necessary, however. As many others have noted, the references to the anonymous city in Isaiah 24–27 likely build on the many references to specific cities in Isaiah 13–23, especially but not limited to Babylon. Given the universal frame of reference, the text opts not to limit the references to one specific city. 27.  The theme of rebuilt temple and reestablished cult is not limited to Isaiah 60– 62 but can found elsewhere in Trito-Isaiah. Moreover, Isaiah 56–66 does not reflect a monolithic view about the value of the newly rebuilt temple.

Isaiah 24:5 and Persian-Period Discourse

205

themselves to Yhwh” (‫ ;בני הנכר הנלוים אל יהוה‬Isa 56:6), a point hinted at in 55:3–5 as well. Consequently, observance of the covenant is not simply­ an Israelite affair, but, theoretically, has an international flavor. 28 One important element of this must be the requirement that all—Israelite and foreigner—participate in temple cult properly. If this position is granted, it may help explicate the worldwide dimension of the calamity in Isaiah 24. Polaski has emphasized the notion that ‫ ברית עולם‬in Isa 24:5 is, in part, offering a new discourse about the new temple (Polaski 1998: 66–68). 29 Though this notion has a different purpose in his argument, for the present purposes it supports the contention that Isaiah 24 offers a contrasting authoritative image pertaining to a new temple and its corresponding covenant obligations (that is, instructions and laws). In short, it seems plausible to suggest that Isaiah 24 may entertain the view that covenant obligations and participation in the temple community are open to all; hence, breaking the covenant must be expressed in international terms and possess a worldwide dimension. This may help to explain as well the placement of Isaiah 24–27 in the book of Isaiah: by immediately following the oracles against the nations (chaps. 13–23), the text forces the reader to confront preceding images of judgment on those who are not “Israel.” 30 The book of Isaiah, then, contains contrasting understandings of the ‫ברית עולם‬. The invitation to all to join the covenant community includes, inter alia, the prospect that any or all may break the covenant. The inclusion of both possibilities in the book functions as a reminder to the reader that both constructions are on offer. The simple fact of the perpetual covenant’s establishment is not sufficient; its provisions must be fulfilled lest the disaster of violating the covenant unfold. A ‫ ברית עולם‬cut may become a ‫ ברית עולם‬broken.

Conclusion How does the reference to the violation of the covenant fit within the larger discourse about covenant in the Persian period? Because most 28.  There is debate about whether those taken as priests and Levites in 66:18–21 include foreigners or only returned exiles. See Sekine 1989: 236. 29.  It is tempting to speculate that this is Trito-Isaiah’s way of articulating the nonIsraelite, worldwide covenant of Genesis 9. Of course, there are important differences between the two, but the shared international dimension is noteworthy. 30.  Polaski’s concern is, among other things, to demonstrate how an element of continuity exists between discourse pertaining to both the first and second temples. To make this point, he attends to the Priestly and deuteronomic literature, which is not our concern here.

206

J. Todd Hibbard

scholars now recognize the final form of the book of Isaiah (or something very near it) as a product of the Persian period, the understanding of the ‫ ברית עולם‬in Isaiah has implications for assessing how the covenant was understood at that time (Beuken 2007: 323–24; Bosshard-Nepustil 2006: 248–59). Most treatments of covenant in the Persian period focus on either the Priestly covenant or explore how the Mosaic covenant was reinterpreted in the postexilic context (cf. Bautch 2009). As such, focus is directed toward understanding how a theologically potent metaphor from the first temple era was reappropriated in the postexilic context. From this perspective, the covenant articulates the requirements of Jews who wish to live lives faithful to Yhwh. This study has attempted to draw attention to another aspect, namely, the worldwide or international dimension of covenant discourse in the Persian period. Isaiah 24 directs our attention to a discourse about covenant that recognizes non-Jewish participation (which is not to say nonJudaism). Several late texts in the prophetic literature envision non-Jews as part of the cult of Yhwh (Zech 8:20–23; 14:16–21, in addition to texts already mentioned above from Isaiah). What marks Isaiah 24 as unique is its insistence that non-Jewish participation in the covenant is not just a harbinger of positive developments in the religion of emerging Judaism (this is how the notion is normally conveyed) but carries with it risks inherent in a covenantally structured religion. In other words, invitation to join the covenant people includes the possibility of violating and breaking the covenant. That risk is taken on by all those who wish to participate in Judaism, not just those (formerly) known as Israelites. As such, Isaiah 24 marks an important stage in the Persian period development of nascent Judaism.

Bibliography Albertz, R. 2003 Israel in Exile: The History and Literature of the Sixth Century B.C.E., trans. D. Green. Studies in Biblical Literature 3. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Baltzer, K. 2001 Deutero-Isaiah: A Commentary on Isaiah 40–55, trans. M. Kohl. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress. Barkay, G., et al. 2004 The Amulets from Ketef Hinnom: A New Edition and Evaluation. Bulletin of the American Schools of American Research 334: 41–71. Bautch, R. 2009 Glory and Power, Ritual and Relationship: The Sinai Covenant in the Postexilic Period. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 471. London: T. & T. Clark.

Isaiah 24:5 and Persian-Period Discourse

207

Berges, U. 1998 Das Buch Jesaja: Komposition und Endgestalt. Herders Biblische Studien 16. Freiburg: Herder. Beuken, W. A. M. 2007 Jesaja 13–27. Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament. Freiburg: Herder. Blenkinsopp, J. 2000 Isaiah 1–39. Anchor Bible 19. New York: Doubleday. 2002 Isaiah 40–55. Anchor Bible 19A. New York: Doubleday. 2003 Isaiah 56–66. Anchor Bible 19B. New York: Doubleday. Bosshard-Nepustil, E. 2005 Vor uns die Sintflut: Studien zu Text, Kontexten und Rezeption der Fluterzählung Genesis 6–9. Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten (und Neuen) Testament 165. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Childs, B. S. 2000 Isaiah. Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. Clements, R. 2003 The Davidic Covenant in the Isaiah Tradition. Pp. 39–69 in Covenant as Context: Essays in Honour of E. W. Nicholson, ed. A. D. H. Mayes and R. B. Salters. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gerstenberger, E. 2011 Israel in the Persian Period: The Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C.E., trans. S. Schatzmann. Biblical Encyclopedia 8. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Goldingay, J., and Payne, D. 2006 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah 40–55. Vol. 2. International Critical Commentary. London: T. & T. Clark. Hibbard, J. T. 2006 Intertextuality in Isaiah 24–27. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2/16. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Johnson, D. G. 1988 From Chaos to Restoration: An Integrative Reading of Isaiah 24–27. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 61. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Kaiser, O. 1974 Isaiah 13–39, trans. R. A. Wilson. Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. Koch, C. 2008 Vertrag, Treueid und Bund: Studien zur Rezeption des altorientalischen Vertragsrechts im Deuteronomium und zur Ausbildung der Bundestheologie im Alten Testament. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 383. Berlin: de Gruyter. Lau, W. 1994 Schriftgelehrte Prophetie in Jes 56–66: Eine Untersuchung zu den literarischen Bezügen in den letzten elf Kapiteln des Jesajabuches. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 225. Berlin: de Gruyter. Lipschits, O. 2004 The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

208

J. Todd Hibbard

Mason, S. 2007 Another Flood? Genesis 9 and Isaiah’s Broken Eternal Covenant. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 32: 177–98. 2008 “Eternal Covenant” in the Pentateuch: The Contours of an Elusive Phrase. Library of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Series 494. London: T. & T. Clark. Mayes, A. D. H., and Salters, R. B., eds. 2003 Covenant as Context: Essays in Honour of E. W. Nicholson. Oxford: Oxford University Press. McCarthy, D. 1978 Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents and in the Old Testament. 2nd ed. Analecta Biblica 21A. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Mendenhall, G. H. 1992 Covenant. Pp. 1179–1202 in vol. 1 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday. Nicholson, E. 1986 God and His People: Covenant and Theology in the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon. Nitsche, S. 2006 Jesaja 24–27: Ein dramatischer Text: Die Frage nach den Genres prophetischer Literatur des Alten Testaments und die Textgraphik der großen Jesajarolle aus Qumran. Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten (und Neuen) Testament 166. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Oden, R. 1987 The Place of Covenant in the Religion of Israel. Pp. 429–49 in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, ed. P. Miller, P. Hanson and S. D. McBride. Philadelphia: Fortress. Polaski, D. 1998 Reflections on a Mosaic Covenant: The Eternal Covenant (Isaiah 24.5) and Intertextuality. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 23: 55–73. 2001 Authorizing an End: The Isaiah Apocalypse and Intertextuality. Biblical Interpretation 50. Leiden: Brill. Scholl, R. 2000 Die Elenden in Gottes Thronrat: Stilistisch-kompositorische Untersuchungen zu Jes 24–27. Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten (und Neuen) Testament 274. Berlin: de Gruyter. Sekine, S. 1989 Die Tritojesajanische Sammlung (Jes 56–66) redaktionsgeschichtlich untersucht. Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten (und Neuen) Testament 175. Berlin: de Gruyter. Seybold, K. 1972 Das davidische Königtum im Zeugnis der Propheten. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 107. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Smith, M. S. 1981 Bərît ʿam / Bərît ʿôlām: A New Proposal for the Crux of Isaiah 42:6. Journal of Biblical Literature 100: 241–48.

Isaiah 24:5 and Persian-Period Discourse

209

Smith, P. A. 1995 Rhetoric and Redaction in Trito-Isaiah: The Structure, Growth and Authorship of Isaiah 56–66. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 62. Leiden: Brill. Southwood, K. 2011 The Holy Seed: The Significance of Endogamous Boundaries and Their Transgression in Ezra 9–10. Pp. 189–224 in Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Period, ed. O. Lipschits, G. Knoppers and M. Oeming. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Steck, O. H. 1985 Bereitete Heimkehr: Jesaja 35 als redaktionelle Brücke zwischen dem Ersten und dem Zweiten Jesaja. Stuttgarter Bibel-studien 121. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk. 1991 Der Abschluß der Prophetie im Alten Testament. Ein Versuch zur Frage der Vorgeschichte des Kanons. Biblisch-theologische Studien 17. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Stromberg, J. 2009 The Second Temple and the Isaianic Afterlife of the ‫( חסדי דוד‬Isa 55, 3–5). Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 121: 242–55. 2011 Isaiah after Exile: The Author of Third Isaiah as Reader and Redactor of the Book. Oxford Theological Monographs. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sweeney, M. 1996 Isaiah 1–39. Forms of Old Testament Literature 16. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Ulrich, E., et al. 1997 Qumran Cave 4.X: The Prophets. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert XV. Oxford: Clarendon. Vermeylen, J. 1977 Du Prophète Isaïe à l’Apolocalyptique. Études Bibliques 2. Paris: Gabalda. Westermann, C. 1969 Isaiah 40–66, trans. D. M. G. Stalker. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster. Wildberger, H. 1997 Isaiah 13–27, trans. T. Trapp. Continental Commentary. Minneapolis: Fortress. 2002 Isaiah 28–39, trans. T. Trapp. Continental Commentary. Minneapolis: Fortress.

Presumptions of “Covenant” in Joel James Nogalski Baylor University

Introduction It would be easier to begin a discussion of the role of “covenant” within Joel if the word actually appeared within this writing. One can expect considerable resistance to the idea that one can apply the concept “covenant” to a block of text if that text does not actually use the word. Conversely, others will express opinions with equal conviction that the absence of the lexeme ‫ ברית‬does not eliminate the possibility that some understanding of “covenant” was at work in shaping the text or its logic. I confess up front that, on the whole, I found myself attracted to but cautious concerning the arguments of the second group. My hesitation comes not from the theoretical side, but from the practical difficulties of essentially trying to build an argument from silence. How does one clarify, quantify, or characterize a covenant concept if one cannot point to specific places where the term appears? Consequently, I turn to a discussion of the role of covenant in Joel with some trepidation. I readily acknowledge the tension inherent in this task. Nevertheless, I think the task is worth the risk when attempting to understand Joel. It seems to me, as a working hypothesis, that if one can establish some type of covenantal concept at work in the Persian period prophetic writing of Joel, then this concept both says something about and complicates one’s understanding of the social and intellectual milieu of the Persian period scribal elites responsible for transmitting and compiling this prophetic writing. I will therefore explore three observations and then attempt to extrapolate their ramifications for synthesizing an understanding of how the writing of Joel presumes an understanding of covenant. These observations include the lack of explicit language of “covenant,” Joel’s dependence on Exodus language, and Joel’s lack of specific accusations.

Lack of “Covenant” Lexeme Joel never refers to “covenant” explicitly. The statement is both obvious and insufficient. This lack of explicit reference to a key concept does 211

212

James Nogalski

not answer the question, why is the term not present? Is ‫ ברית‬missing in Joel because the prophetic tradents who compiled the writing wanted to avoid the term, or should the missing ‫ ברית‬be explained differently? While the term covenant does not appear, does this mean that a ‫ברית‬ concept must also be assumed to be lacking? 1 Here, I believe that one can begin to say more about the broader covenantal assumptions in Joel than might be obvious at first glance. By anticipating some of the evidence from the later sections of this essay, one can begin to characterize the conceptual world from which the writing of Joel operates in some preliminary ways. For example, the omission of ‫ ברית‬not only means the term cannot provide a direct link to cultic practices that may relate in some way to the Sinai covenant story; the omission of ‫ ברית‬also means Joel contains no direct allusion to a Davidic covenant or to a covenant with the nations that in some way relates to the promise to Noah or to a covenant with Abraham. 2 This statement, I believe, has significance for a number of reasons, the most important of which for our purposes concerns the conceptual paradigms that are reflected in Joel. Joel demonstrates a mastery of the art of scribal allusions and echoes. Joel offers at least one allusion to paradise traditions (Joel 2:3), but the majority of the allusive language evokes imagery and lexemes at home in the narratives of the Exodus story and the desert wandering. Nevertheless, the nonappearance of ‫ ברית‬is not unexpected in every case. The omission of ‫ ברית‬in relation to David coalesces with the fact that Joel never mentions a king, or a king’s family. This missing king contrasts markedly with the role of the king with covenant (renewals) in Chronicles. 3 1.  Lohfink (2000: 23–30) aptly discusses both the diverse understandings of covenant and their relationship to torah in biblical texts, including but not limited to Deuteronomistic and Priestly covenant understandings, with the latter referring to promises that cannot be abrogated while the former conceptualizes “covenant” primarily in terms of an agreement with implied obligations (pp. 17–18). He argues that the Deuteronomistic History links “covenant” and torah closely together despite the differences and that this “Deuteronomistic connection has been fused together in the canonical process with everything else otherwise connected with the word ‫ ברית‬in Israel’s scriptures” (pp. 26–27). One certainly sees evidence of this fusion in Joel’s assumptions that the current situation represents an actualization of covenant curses. 2.  For a recent summary and analysis of the interplay between groups drawing on Moses and Abraham as ciphers for covenant theologies in the Postexilic Period, see Bautch 2009: 42–63. 3.  Chronicles displays a keen interest in involving the king with temple liturgy along with priests and prophets (McCarthy 1982: 29–30). The prominence of the prophet in liturgical summons in Joel, however, also stands out from the paradigmatic

Presumptions of “Covenant” in Joel

213

In Joel, the presence of an indigenous ruler never serves as the subject of any of the liturgical or oracular material. Further, reference to the leadership of the community as “elders” (1:2, 14) and assumptions of Yhwh as judge over the nation to protect Zion (4:1, 12) underscore the fact that a human king is entirely missing from Joel. Relatedly, whereas numerous disasters befall the country in Joel, a flood stands out as one of the few calamities that Joel does not describe. Naturally, flood motifs would be difficult to weave into the portrayal of the land of devastation and drought as depicted in Joel 1–2, but a lack of flood imagery could certainly help to account for the omission of allusions to the covenant of Noah as well. Finally, the language used by Joel to cite or to echo traditions found elsewhere in the canon does not involve allusions to Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob. The ancestral triad associated with covenant language is not a focus of Joel. Hence, the lack of reference to ‫ ברית‬comports well with the lack of reference to anything related to covenant concepts related to Noah, to Abraham, or to David. The same cannot be said, however, regarding the lack of specific reference to ‫ ברית‬and the conceptual realm related to the Exodus story and the Mosaic covenant.

Joel’s Use of Exodus Joel draws programmatically on the Exodus narrative. Joel uses the exodus story as a typology for the coming day of Yhwh. Bergler carefully documents the extent to which Joel relied on the phrasing and images of other biblical texts at key junctures in the book (Bergler 1988). He consequently refers to Joel’s mode of interpretation as Scripture prophecy (Schriftprophetie) and to Joel’s prophetic role as that of a Scripture interpreter (Schriftinterpret). While Bergler is by no means the first to notice this tendency in Joel, his treatment remains the most extensive in this respect. Bergler’s particular contribution to the way in which Joel adapts the language of other biblical texts stems from Bergler’s isolation of Joel’s language that evokes the imagery of the plague narratives from Exodus, as well as several prophetic texts. For Bergler, Joel manifests an Exodus typology when describing the devastation of the land, and what is more, this Exodus typology draws heavily from Exodus 10 and from Sinai assumptions in Ezra–Nehemiah where “prophetic speeches are not the first step in covenant-renewal itself ” (McCarthy 1982: 32). Whether one should treat these differences as a matter of debate or a reflection of changing realities remains a matter of some debate. For example, see the discussions of Levenson (1979) and Knoppers (1998).

214

James Nogalski

theophanic imagery from Exodus to draw out the implications of the day of Yhwh (Bergler 1988: 247–94). Thus, this typology subtly creates an analogy between the plague narrative against the pharaoh and the various threats to Judah in Joel. In this context, it is no wonder that the turning point in Joel (2:13–14) alludes quite explicitly to Yhwh’s self-presentation in Exod 34:6–7, a presentation that characterizes Yhwh as long-suffering, full of ‫חסד‬, and committed to fidelity. Joel 2:12–17 functions as the hinge in the book between the threats to Judah (1:2–2:11) and the promises given by Yhwh in the event that Judah repents successfully (2:18–28). 4

Joel’s Lack of Accusation Joel lacks accusations against the people but questions remain regarding whether or not a reader of Joel should presume a sense of their guilt. The omission of accusations has elicited at least three alternative explanations for the setting of the book. First, several argue that Joel presumes a liturgical setting that is closely connected to a national threat, meaning that the prophet focuses on deliverance from the danger at hand, not its cause. 5 Second, recent commentators have argued that Joel represents an exploration of theodicy, an affirmation of Yhwh’s justice in the face of devastation.  6 Third, and interrelated to some degree, several commenta4.  Concerning the centrality of 2:12–17 in the rhetoric of the entire book, see the differing perspectives of Wolff (1977: 42, 57) and Sweeney (2000: 164–69) along with most commentaries. Chapters 3–4 of Joel also provide promises, but they are less integrally connected to the material in chaps. 1–2 (see Barton 2001: 13–14). 5.  For examples, see Rudolph 1971: 23–24; Weiser 1985: 105–6; Wolff 1977: 13–14; Reicke 1970: 133–41; Sweeney 2000: 153–56; and Jeremias 2007: 3–5. 6.  Crenshaw (1995: 39–43) and Barton (2001: 29–32, 39–40) differ considerably on the nature of this theodicy. Crenshaw believes that Joel draws on an actual situation that combined locust plague and drought together but uses the situation to explore the meaning of the day of Yhwh. For Crenshaw, Joel interprets a natural calamity (that included both drought and locust plague) “in terms of the dreaded day of Yhwh’s visitation in wrath, only to transfer this divine manifestation to foreign nations after the Jewish community turned to Yhwh and became fortunate recipients of divine compassion” (Crenshaw 1995: 50). Hence, the author of Joel, for Crenshaw, draws on current experience of a natural catastrophe but uses that experience as the backdrop for a “literary construct” (Crenshaw 1995: 39) that reflects the writer’s religious convictions. Barton (2001: 29–32, 39–40) argues that the goal of the compilation is that of theodicy rather than prophetic summons. Barton believes that these chapters “want to demonstrate that God really is in control of the world and has just purposes for it, in which the righteous will be vindicated and the wicked punished” Barton (2001: 39–40). This orientation, for Barton, distinguishes Joel from an apocalyptic seer who believes that the end of time will be breaking into history quite quickly.

Presumptions of “Covenant” in Joel

215

tors treat Joel as a literarily constructed, theological exploration of the day of Yhwh concept. 7 These alternative models do not mean that interpreters agree with one another on the nature of the threat or whether the prophet assumes the people are guilty of something. For example, Wolff (1977: 13) sees the liturgical elements as part of a call related to heed prophetic “kerygma,” while Rudolph (1971: 23–24) refers to the liturgy as a call to a fast of confession (Bussfast), though he is silent regarding the nature of what the people are expected to confess. By contrast, Jeremias (2007: 5, 11, 18–20) refers to the liturgical setting as a complaint liturgy (Klageliturgie) in response to an essentially random—though potentially devastating— event which can only be changed by a radical reorientation and turning to Yhwh. Sweeney (2000: 153–56) also sees the book as a communal complaint, which he describes as a response to an impending natural disaster that inherently includes repentance as a part of the response. Given the variety of responses to the lack of accusation, further reflection on these assumptions in light of implicit covenant assumptions may shed light on how Joel functions. In this light, the role of covenant and worship overlap (see Balentine 1999: 119–21).

Implications: Joel’s Presumption of a Covenant Breakdown Covenants of necessity imply obligations (McCarthy 1972: 83–84), and covenant obligations lead to stipulations of accountability. I would contend that the summonses in Joel are not neutral reflections of an impending threat. Rather, the imperative calls demanding action which address various groups would most naturally have elicited a sense of accusation. The evidence for this statement derives from the rhetorical tenor of the calls and the intertextual constellations of the problems facing the people in Joel 1. 7.  Deist (1988: 63–79) interprets Joel as an artful, thematic literary construction not an experiential representation of reality. He believes that Joel explores the theme of the day of Yhwh from at least three, if not four, theological perspectives that reinterpret one another. Joel 1, for Deist, when read alone constitutes essentially an anti-Canaanite theology that explores the day of Yhwh. Joel 4 interprets the day of Yhwh apocalyptically, while Joel 1–3 reflects an eschatological theology. Joel 1–2 make sense together but must be interpreted in light of theophany and judgment. Stuart (1987: 231–34) argues against understanding the “locusts” in Joel as literal locusts. Rather, Stuart recognizes in Joel the use of the covenant curse language that draws on Deuteronomy 28–32, Exodus 10, and a host of prophetic texts that suggest a tradition historical prophetic concept at work. This language draws on the covenant curse language to describe a human army invading the land.

216

James Nogalski

Rhetoric of Cultic Threat and Polemical Disparagement The rhetorical tenor of accusations exhibits both cultic assumptions and a polemical tone. The cumulative effect of the recurring commands calls for action: listen (1:2), recount (1:2), wake up (1:5), weep (1:5), wail (1:5, 11), lament (1:8, 13), be dismayed (1:11), put on sackcloth (1:13). The calls summon different groups to action, but this action implies a threat(s) whose effects are broad ranging. If one asks about the cause behind this threat, one has to recognize the communal nature of the call. The call to repent does not threaten judgment against a specific king such as Jehoiakim, a wayward prophet such as Hannaniah, or a priest such as Hophni or Phineas. The rhetoric of Joel is directed at groups and not individuals: elders; all the inhabitants of the land; children, grandchildren, and greatgrandchildren; drunkards; priests and ministers; farmers and vine dressers. The common thread holding the groups together is cultic. Each group that is called to respond has some connection to worship at the temple. The producers, practitioners, participants, practices, and places in Joel 1–2 all revolve around temple worship. The calls to lament address those who raise the crops used in grain offerings and drink offerings (farmers, vintners in 1:11), or those who administer said offerings (the priests, the ministers of the altar/Yhwh in 1:9, 13; 2:14). The calls also refer to those who participate in these cultic events, including all the inhabitants of the land who cry out to the deity at “the house of Yhwh your God” (1:14) and a sanctified congregation (2:16). The cultic events mentioned include a fast, a solemn assembly (1:14; 2:12, 15), and other cultic celebrations that should be the source of joy and gladness (1:12, 16). The calls take place at the temple (1:9, 13, 14, 16) and between the portico and the altar (2:17). The tenor of these calls not only conveys a broad threat in a cultic context, it also uses polemically charged language in places, language that strongly implies wrongdoing or apathy in the face of danger. The isolation of “drunkards” who are asleep evokes images of condemnation (1:5). Farmers and vintners should be ashamed (1:11). Priests should put on the clothing of sackcloth and ashes, but because no one has died, this activity should be seen as a penitential sign rather than a sign of mourning (1:13). Finally, though I may be in the minority in this interpretation of an ambiguous image, the call to the land personified in 1:8 can also be interpreted as a call to Judah to show remorse “like the virgin (Israel) because of the Baal of her youth.” 8 8.  Most commentators have ignored the function of this unusual verse as an allusion to Hosea 2 but see my recent discussion (Nogalski 2011: 220–21). See also Deist 1988: 68–69. Deist sees these connections as part of an anti-Canaanite polemic in Joel

Presumptions of “Covenant” in Joel

217

Taken together, this language becomes hard to understand in neutral terms. Rather, this language evokes a clear sense of accusation even though a specific accusation is not stated. In short, the prophetic calls to the groups in these cultic contexts assume a charge that the current situation derives from the actions and apathy of the entire country. Intertextual Constellations with Covenant Texts In addition to the rhetorical tenor, intertextual echoes in Joel 1–2 also play a subtle, but distinctive role in conveying a sense that the problems delineated by Joel result from Judah’s breaking of covenant stipulations. Echoes of Covenant Blessings and Curses Rooted in Deuteronomy 28–32 Bergler (1988: 247–52) has already demonstrated the extent to which Joel works with a typology of the Exodus. The use of vocabulary from Exodus 10 and from the Sinai theophany produces echoes in Joel of the plagues against Egypt and Yhwh’s deliverance of Israel from slavery, except that the language of the plagues has been inverted in Joel 1–2 so that the language threatens Israel rather than Egypt. The threats in Joel, as Stuart (1987: 232) has noted, also echo another literary context, that of the blessings and curses incorporated into the treaty language of Deuteronomy. Stuart notes this connection, but he does not explore it in detail, and it has generally received little attention in studies of the allusions used in this scribal style of Joel. Yet, the threats and promises described in Joel mirror those described in the curses and blessings associated with the covenant ideas in Deuteronomy 27–32, and these connections play a pivotal role in the logic that unfolds in Joel. Deuteronomy 27–32 represents a meaningful section of the book, though one that shows clear signs of the use of multiple sources, as well as multiple redactions. What sets this section of Deuteronomy apart literarily is the narrative frame on the one end that reintroduces the character Moses and on the other end the poetic “song” of Moses in Deut 32:1–43, whose narrative conclusion (32:44–52) recounts the command from Yhwh to Moses to ascend Mount Nebo because the time of his death is at hand that confronts the Baal cult, much like Hosea 2. Nevertheless, the content of Joel 1:8 does not fit well as “anti-Canaanite theology” at the time of Joel’s composition, when the worship of Baal was not a current battle, so this label is misleading. Rather, Joel 1:8 accuses the land personified of breaking covenant fidelity as the Virgin (Israel) did in her relationship with “the Baal of her youth.” This concept draws a polemical analogy to Israel’s involvement with the Baal cult, but the analogy also conveys a clear sense of chronological distance to the confrontation with the Baal cult.

218

James Nogalski

(32:48–54). What holds these chapters together is not their inherent unity but the thematic elements wherein Moses admonishes Israel to maintain covenant fidelity. Moses has not been named specifically in Deuteronomy since 5:1, when he reappears beginning in 27:1 and is named some 30 times between 27:1 and the end of the book. Deuteronomy 33 is also a poetic speech of Moses, but it is not focused on covenant fidelity. Rather, in chap. 33 Moses characterizes the tribes of Israel (or more accurately most of them) in his final speech. The final chapter of Deuteronomy recounts the death of Moses and the transfer of leadership to Joshua. The material within Deuteronomy 27–32 consists of several larger units including the curses of chap. 27, the curses and blessings of chap. 28 (which contain most of the linguistic parallels to Joel), a narrated covenant ceremony in chaps. 29–30 (which contains directions for restoring the covenant when Israel breaks it in chap. 30) which concludes (chap. 31) with a summary speech that provides a summation of the wilderness wanderings, a final charge to the Levites (31:9–13), Moses’ final advice to Joshua (31:14–23), and the completion of the book of the covenant (31:24–29) before Moses’ final song to all Israel (chap. 32). While debate continues about the exact sequence of the combining of these chapters, the vast majority of redactional models would conclude that the core material in these chapters would have been in place by the first half of the fourth century, at which point many would date the compilation of Joel. 9 In terms of relative dating, then, the relevant portions of Deuteronomy would have existed by the time Joel was composed. One of the ongoing issues in the study of Joel concerns the extent to which multiple threats converge in these chapters. Sections describing the present or imminent danger continually vacillate between threats related to a series of locust plagues (1:4; 2:25), drought (1:10–12, 17–18, 20), fire (1:19, 20b), and military attack depicted in metaphorical and cosmic terms (1:6–7; 2:1–11). It strains credulity to think that all of these elements confronted the people of Judah simultaneously and that a prophet would have to awaken those who had not noticed and would have to challenge the priests to pay attention. When one notices, however, the relationship of these threats in Joel to the curse language of Deuteronomy, one can begin to appreciate the paradigmatic quality of Joel, as well as an operative sense of covenant ex9. While some would suggest material entered Deuteronomy after that point, those passages in question do not appear to involve chaps. 28 and 30, the key points of contact discussed below. Concerning the complicated issue of dating Joel, see Nogalski 2011: 201–3; and Jeremias 2007: 2–5.

Presumptions of “Covenant” in Joel

219

pectations driving the compilation of this small book. Deuteronomy 28 prescribes a set of contingencies that will go into effect depending on the disobedience or obedience of Yhwh’s people relative to the covenant stipulations. Among others, the contingencies include numerous elements reflecting the multiple threats of Joel 1–2, which can be seen in the following: • An enemy attack in the form of a nation (Deut 28:51; cf. Joel 1:6–7) • This nation consumes the land’s grain, wine, and oil along with cattle and flocks (Deut 28:51; cf. Joel 1:5, 9–10, 20) • Yhwh’s people will become a parable among all nations in the form of a reproach and a proverb (Deut 28:37; cf. 29:33; cf. Joel 2:17) • Drought manifests itself both in terms of heat and lack of rain (Deut 28:22, 24; cf. Joel 1:10–12, 17, 19–20); and its effect will be to empty the storehouse (cf. Deut 28:12; Joel 17) • Locusts will attack and consume the seed and the produce of the land (Deut 28:48; cf. Joel 1:4; 2:25), and other insects will possess the land (Deut 28:42) • “Joy and gladness” should characterize the service to Yhwh performed by the people (Deut 28:47) while these attitudes have disappeared in Joel 1:12, 16

When all of these curses appear, they serve as “signs and portents” (Deut 28:46) of Yhwh’s wrath because of the covenant disobedience they represent (Deut 28:45; 29:1–15). The point here is not to prove explicit citations in the form of allusions, echoes, and lexical clusters, though one could easily make that case. Rather, the point here is to demonstrate that, collectively, the threats in Joel 1–2 produce a strong and clear sense of indictment. A scenario like that described in Joel 1—where drought, locusts, enemy attack, and heat combine simultaneously—portrays the current situation as the actualization of the curse that signifies disobedience of the covenant stipulations. 10 What is not clear in Deuteronomy 28, or in the blessings and curses as a whole, is what happens after the curses take effect. The curses and blessings function in Deuteronomy 27–29 as admonitions against disobeying the covenant. Only with Deuteronomy 30 does 10. Concerning how “curses” function in covenant contexts, see Stuart 1992: 1218–19. See also Scharbert’s distinction (1978: 270) between “obligatory” covenants such as the Mosaic covenant and promissory covenants such as the covenants with Abraham and David. These heuristic terms can be misleading because, in reality, promissory covenants contain stipulations or conditions. See Knoppers 1998. The point is that covenants presume relational expectations that can be implied or stated explicitly. These conditional terms, as Knoppers has demonstrated, vary from text to text and often play out in their literary contexts.

220

James Nogalski

one find instruction for how to restore the people to right relationship with Yhwh after the manifestation of the curses. 11 Deut 30:1–3 offers a three-step program of restoration. The first step involves surviving the curses. More inferred than described, the setting of these verses takes place “when all these things have happened to you, the blessings and the curses that I have set before you” (30:1). The merism of blessings and curses in 30:1 refers to the experience after entering the land, but in actuality its addressee concerns those who survive the curses and who are living in exile: “When all these things have happened to you, the blessings and the curses that I have set before you, if you call them to mind among all the nations where the Lord your God has driven you.” This statement assumes that the punishments brought on by disobedience have occurred (see Olson 2003: 201–2). The second step requires the survivors to return (‫ )שוב‬to Yhwh by obeying Yhwh’s covenant commands. Specifically, the people who are to experience the curses are told that what will happen when “you have returned to Yhwh your God and listened to his voice according to everything I have commanded you today, you and your children, with all your heart and with all your soul” (30:2). Hence, once you have been punished (step 1) and once you have returned in obedience (step 2), then God will act redemptively (step 3). The third step involves God’s restoration of the relationship by returning what had been lost. According to 30:3, Yhwh will return possessions, show compassion, and gather people back. These promises become concretized in the form of new covenant promises (30:4–10) that emphasize the reliability of Yhwh’s restoration. These promises reverse the curses, not only as described in Deuteronomy but also the curses reflected in the situation presumed in Joel 1 (note also Joel 3–4). These parallels take the form of return from exile (30:4), removal of enemies (30:7), and reversal of the lack of prosperity exhibited through the restoration of children, livestock, and agriculture (30:9). Similar promissory motifs appear in Joel 2:18–27. The restoration also reiterates the covenant relationship as foundational for those who endure the curses in the form of a simple cause and effect statement: if you obey Yhwh by loving Yhwh and following the covenant 11. Another late text in the book, Deut 4:25–31, also deals with the issue of the aftermath of Israel’s expulsion, but from a decidedly more ambiguous perspective. See McDonald 2006: 203–10 for a rehearsal of the history of interpretation that has largely treated Deuteronomy 4 as distinct from Deuteronomy 1–3 because of the paranetic unity of chap. 4 and yet its formal distinction from the historical recitations of chaps. 1–3. Deut 4:25–31 contains no promise of return, which has led many to see all of Deuteronomy 4 as an exilic supplement. See Rofé 1985: 442.

Presumptions of “Covenant” in Joel

221

expectations, then your number will increase and the land will produce blessings (30:16). Deuteronomy 32 adds two additional elements in Moses’ retrospective accusation against the people: (1) highlighting idolatry as the source of Yhwh’s jealousy (32:21–22, 37–39) and (2) promising vengeance on the enemies on the “day of their calamity” (32:35), a phrase that functions as a synonym for the day of Yhwh in the Book of the Twelve (Obadiah 13, Judah; cf. also “day of distress” in Obadiah 12–14, Nah 1:7, 9; Hab 3:16; Zeph 1:15; Zech 10:11), as well as Jeremiah (46:21 [Egypt]) and Ezekiel (35:5, “time of calamity” for Edom). Given this paradigm of blessings and curses, one should understand Joel 1 as a warning that carries an implicit critique. Joel 1 describes numerous threats, all of which have echoes within the covenant curse language. Read in light of Deuteronomy 27–30, one would have to conclude that Joel 1 describes the current situation of the audience in terms that assume the present represents the actualization of the covenant curses. Deuteronomy 27–30 anticipates the entry into the land and articulates a conditional prosperity once in the land that is tied to covenant expectations. By contrast, Joel 1 assumes a conceptual shift by addressing those who are currently suffering the curses and who may not survive them. This shifting expectation also appears in other texts that draw on the cause and effect paradigm of covenant curses and blessings. Consider the temple prayer of Solomon. Echoes of Covenant Blessings and Curses in 1 Kings 8 and 2 Chronicles 5–7 The temple dedication prayer of Solomon in 1 Kgs 8:12–53 contains several different rhetorical focuses, and the text has long been recognized as one of the key speeches of the Deuteronomistic History reflecting the compositional and editorial interests of those who compiled the traditions of Israel and Judah into a continuing narrative. 12 The manner in which this prayer combines a focus on the covenant and the role of the blessings and curses language can be illustrative for understanding how Joel 1–2 would likely have been heard in its ancient scribal context. The key portions of this prayer for our purposes appear in 8:33–51, where a series of six cause-and-effect scenarios create a theological paradigm of reconciliation, though the literary context is important as well. 13 12.  See, for example, the summary of Noth and newer approaches to the narrative of Genesis–Kings in Kratz 2005: 157–58; and in Sweeney 2007: 130. 13.  A seventh petition (8:31–32) also appears in 1 Kings 8, but the role of the cause and effect is different. In 8:31–32, the desired response from Yhwh does not follow

222

James Nogalski

The context creates a theological foundation in the mouth of Solomon for how the covenant curses will play themselves out for Judah and Israel, and for how God’s people would need to respond if reconciliation is to take place (see table 1.) This foundation implies a clear cause-and-effect relationship between human behavior and divine punishment. 14 The core of this prayer in 1 Kgs 8:33–51, while largely considered to be composite, constitutes a series of six conditional thematic extensions of this cause and effect principle, most of which, however, display an interest not only in the people’s punishment, but in explaining how restitution and reconciliation with Yhwh may happen. 15 Both the themes used to illustrate the sin and the actions needed to establish a path to reconciliation reflect motifs that resonate very closely with the narrative expectations of Joel 1–2 and in ways that distinguish Joel and 1 Kings 8 from Deuteronomy alone. Rhetorically, four of these six casuistically phrased situations presume a state of broken covenant will exist in the future (8:33–34, 35–36, 37–40, 46–51), thus foreshadowing the breakdown of the kingdom that will unfold in 1–2 Kings. Some wrong, committed by the people, will leave the people in a state that correlates to the covenant curse. This situation leads to statements about the actions required of Yhwh’s people to reconcile, and these statements transition to the desired response from Yhwh to reverse the problem. 16 from human actions designed for restoration. Rather, that petition calls on Yhwh to exercise justice unilaterally. Moreover, 8:32 expects Yhwh to act in the form of judgment against the perpetrator of the offense and implies concern with Yhwh’s maintaining justice. 14.  For additional delineations of similarities, see McConville: 71–77. 15.  A survey of recent commentaries on 1 Kings 8 shows a broad consensus of the composite nature of this chapter. See Campbell and O’Brien 2000: 349–59 and Fritz 2003: 90–102. Fritz finds preexilic, exilic, and postexilic material within 1 Kings 8. Sweeney (2007: 131–32), going against the grain, sees the chapter as a single composition and thinks its earliest composition referred to the Assyrian exile but that it comes to be understood as a reference to the Babylonian exile. Hence, Sweeney sees multiple settings rather than multiple authors as having effects on the reader. Knoppers (1995: 233–39) argues for the essential literary unity of 1 Kings 8 based on the symmetry and balance of its literary frames and the common structure of the petitions that exhibits the same six recurring elements. Knoppers (1995: 247–48), like Sweeney, sees the prayer as a composition of the late seventh century that expands the role of the temple in ways he finds hard to imagine if the temple was already destroyed but that would have made sense for both Judeans and Northern Kingdom refugees in the late seventh century. The precise dating of individual pieces of 1 Kings 8 does not affect the arguments of this essay because, if it was a seventh century creation, Sweeney is certainly correct that the destruction of the temple in a few short years would have had a tremendous impact on how the curse language was heard in the aftermath of the Babylonian destruction as well. 16. See Schmid (2010: 150–51 n. 652). Schmid does not merely discuss the manner­in which the prophetic corpus relates to the judgment in the Enneateuch. He

Presumptions of “Covenant” in Joel

223

Table 1. Covenant Curses for Judah and Israel Verses

Situation: Effect and Cause

8:33–34 When (‫ )כי‬sin leads = 2 Chr to enemy defeat 6:24–25

Expected Human Response confession and prayer at temple

Desired Response > Yhwh forgiveness and return to the land

8:35–36 When (‫ )כי‬drought pray toward temple; hear (the prayer of the people); forgiveness; teaching; send rain = 2 Chr happens as a sign of confess Yhwh’s 6:26–27 sin and punishment name; turn from sin because Yhwh punished them hear; forgive; respond to those whose “ways” and “heart” are right so the people may “reverence” Yhwh while they live in the land given to their ancestors

8:37–40 multiple conditions: = 2 Chr if (‫ )כי‬famine 6:28–31 if (‫ )כי‬plague, blight/mildew, locusts if (‫ )כי‬enemy, plague, or sickness

prayer from an individual or all Israel who knows their heart people stretching hands to temple

8:41–43 and also (‫ )וגם‬a = 2 Chr foreigner . . . if (‫)כי‬ 6:32–33 he comes to pray at this house

comes and prays to- hear so that peoples will know ward your house your name and reverence you (like your people) and your name

8:44–45 If (‫ )כי‬your people = 2 Chr go out against an 6:34–35 enemy

pray to Yhwh, toward Jerusalem and the temple

hear and maintain their cause

8:46–51 If (‫ )כי‬people sin = 2 Chr and you give people 6:36–39 over to an enemy and they are taken captive to the enemy’s land

8:47: they come to their senses; repent (‫ ;)שוב‬plead to Yhwh and confess (we have sinned; erred; and done evil); 8:48: they repent (‫ )שוב‬with all their heart and pray toward the land you gave their fathers; toward the city; and toward the temple

49: hear their prayer and their plea and maintain their cause 50: and forgive your people who sinned against you (they are your heritage)

Three major differences between the covenant curse presentations in Joel, 1 Kgs 8:33–51, and Deuteronomy 28 and 30 also deserve note: also notes explicitly how 1 Kings 8 already exhibits a restoration perspective different from Deuteronomy but a perspective that already presupposes that the destruction of Jerusalem in 2 Kings 25 is not the end of the story.

224

James Nogalski

the chronological location in the larger narratives, the role of the temple, and the lack of royal references. Concerning the chronological settings, Deuteronomy 28 articulates the framework of the blessings and curses as a warning of how to behave and how not to behave and is delivered before the people enter the land. By contrast, 1 Kgs 8:33–51 assumes the actualization of the covenant curses will happen even as it articulates a paradigm for reconciliation through prayer at the temple once Israel has broken faith with Yhwh. This change of perspective not only anticipates the plot lines of Kings (which end in the destruction of Jerusalem), it anticipates a paradigm of reconciliation that deals with questions that were current for the exilic community and beyond: what happens after judgment to the relationship between Yhwh and Yhwh’s people? Concerning the role of the temple, Joel shares more in common with 1 Kings 8 than with Deuteronomy 28 or 30. Knoppers makes a compelling case for the extent to which 1 Kings 8 invests the Jerusalem temple with a cultic and spiritual role that it does not exhibit in Deuteronomy: The temple of Jerusalem, the chief beneficiary of the Josianic reforms, has a crucial cultic and spiritual role to play in the life of Israel. This role, as it is portrayed in Solomon’s prayer, is highly benevolent. Human transgression of divine commands may be common, even inevitable (1 Kgs 8:46), but such transgression can be overcome. The temple is the place where people may appeal to the deity for justice and the revocation of calamities caused by their own sins. The range of cases in which such appeal may be made is not limited to any one dimension of life. Natural disasters, military defeats, and human disease are not obstacles to divine compassion and action (Knoppers 1995: 253).

This is also the case for Joel’s portrayal of the need to reform. For Joel, the Jerusalem cult holds the key to restoration, even as it also suffers from the situation. The various threats in Joel 1 mean that “joy and gladness” have been removed from the temple (1:16). The priests are admonished to consecrate communal events at the temple (1:13–14), to lead the people in repentance (2:12–14), and to intercede to Yhwh on the people’s behalf “between the vestibule and the altar” of the temple (2:17). A third difference between Joel’s covenant assumptions and those of 1 Kings 8 or Deuteronomy has already been anticipated earlier in this paper­. In 1 Kgs 8:1, Solomon assembles the leaders of Israel in Jerusalem. Solomon also takes a leading role in cultic sacrifices (8:5) and frequently reminds the readers of his own role as builder of the temple (8:13, 16–20, 27, 43, 44, 48). In light of the similarities of covenant curse imagery in these three texts, the lack of any royal language at all in Joel is striking.

Presumptions of “Covenant” in Joel

225

The leadership of the temple is defined in terms of priests and ministers (1:9, 13; 2:17) in Joel while in 1 Kings 8 the priests and Levites come at the command of the king and perform cultic ceremonies (8:3, 4, 6, 10, 11). This lack of royal presence reflects the structure of the Second Temple. In this sense, Joel seems more like Deuteronomy than 1 Kings 8.

Conclusion: A Synthesis These passages in Deuteronomy, 1 Kings, and Joel demonstrate a clear sense of cause-and-effect theology related to covenant fidelity, but they do so from very different literary locations and for different rhetorical purposes. Deuteronomy 27–30 functions as admonition and warning to Israel from Moses to keep the covenant once Israel enters the land. Subtly, it anticipates Israel’s failure to do so. By contrast, 1 Kgs 8:33–51 functions as a literary foreshadowing of events that will lead to Jerusalem’s destruction. This foreshadowing also provides a theological framework for reconciliation between Yhwh and Yhwh’s people when they break the covenant. This reconciliation takes place in and through the Jerusalem cult. Joel 1 presumes the covenant curse is in effect and consequently the people must respond before Yhwh will remove the curses. The responses assume guilt on the part of the people and call for restoration through a cultic and spiritual response of repentance. The situations reflect operative effects of the covenant curse and the results of covenant infidelity (ethical and religious) on the part of Yhwh’s people. Reconciliation involves change of attitude and behavior— illustrated with language of fidelity and repentance (‫ חסד‬and ‫)שוב‬. Jerusalem and its temple play a powerful role in 1 Kings 8 and Joel. Both texts presume covenant stipulations more than make them explicit, and both texts imply the breaking of the covenant through the lexemes and the rhetoric that echoes the covenant curse language of Deuteronomy 27–32. For Joel, the covenant curse language functions as a didactic element: if the current situation looks like the situations described in the covenant curses, then the people are at fault and they must act if they wish to reconcile with Yhwh. This teaching on reconciliation becomes explicit in Joel 2:12–17, a text that represents the turning point in the book.

Bibliography Balentine, S. E. 1999 The Torah’s Vision of Worship. Overtures to Biblical Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress.

226

James Nogalski

Barton, J. 2001 Joel and Obadiah. Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. Bautch, R. J. 2009 An Appraisal of Abraham in Post-exilic Covenants. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 71: 42–63. Bergler, S. 1988 Joel als Schriftinterpret. Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des Antiken Judentums 16. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Campbell, A., and O’Brien, M. 2000 Unfolding the Deuteronomistic History: Origins, Upgrades, Present Text. Minneapolis: Fortress. Crenshaw, J. 1995 Joel: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 24C. New York: Doubleday. Deist, F. E. 1988 Parallels and Reinterpretation in the Book of Joel: A Theology of the Yom Yahweh. Pp. 63–79 in Text and Context: Old Testament and Semitic Studies for F. C. Fensham, ed. W. T. Claassen. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 48. Sheffield: JSOT Press. Fritz, V. 2003 1 and 2 Kings. Continental Commentary. Minneapolis: Fortress. Jeremias, J. 2007 Die Propheten Joel, Obadja, Jona, Micha. Das Alte Testament Deutsch 24, 3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Knoppers, G. 1995 Prayer and Propaganda: Solomon’s Dedication of the Temple and the Deuteronomist’s Program. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 57: 229–54. 1998 David’s Relation to Moses: The Contexts, Content, and Conditions of the Davidic Promises. Pp. 91–119 in King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar, ed. John Day. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 270. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Kratz, R. G. 2005 The Composition of the Narrative Books of the Old Testament, trans. John Bowden. London: T. & T. Clark. Levenson, J. D. 1979 The Davidic Covenant and Its Modern Interpreters. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 41: 205–19. Lohfink, N. 2000 The Concept of “Covenant” in Biblical Theology. Pp. 11–31 in The God of Israel and the Nations: Studies in Isaiah and the Psalms by N. Lohfink and E. Zenger, trans. E. R. Kalin. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press. McCarthy, D. J. 1972 Berît and Covenant in the Deuteronomistic History. Pp. 65–85 in Studies in the Religion of Ancient Israel. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 23. Leiden: Brill.

Presumptions of “Covenant” in Joel

227

1982 Covenant and Law in Chronicles–Nehemiah. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 44: 25–44. McConville, J. G. 1992 1 Kings VIII 46–53 and the Deuteronomic Hope. Vetus Testamentum 42: 67–79. McDonald, N. 2006 The Literary Criticism and Rhetorical Logic of Deuteronomy. Vetus Testamentum 56: 203–24. Nogalski, J. D. 2011 The Book of the Twelve: Hosea–Jonah. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary 18a. Macon: Smyth & Helwys. Olson, D. T. 2003 How Does Deuteronomy Do Theology? Literary Juxtaposition and Paradox in the New Moab Covenant in Deuteronomy 29–32. Pp. 201–13 in A God So Near: Essays on Old Testament Theology in Honor of Patrick D. Miller, ed. B. A. Strawn and N. R. Bowen. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Reicke, B. 1970 Joel und seine Zeit. Pp. 133–41 in Wort—Gebot—Glaube Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments: Walther Eichrodt zum 80. Geburtstag, ed. J. J. Stamm and E. Jenni. Zurich: Zwingli. Rofé, A. 1985 The Monotheistic Argumentation in Deuteronomy IV 32–40: Contents, Composition and Text. Vetus Testamentum 35: 434–45. Rudolph, W. 1971 Joel—Amos—Obadja—Jona. KAT 13/2. Gütersloh: Mohn. Scharbert, J. 1978 ‫ברית‬. P. 270 in vol. 2 of The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. J. Botterweck, H. Ringgren, and H. J. Fabry. 15 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Schmid, K. 2010 Genesis and the Moses Story, trans. J. D. Nogalski. Siphrut 3. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Stuart, D. 1987 Hosea–Jonah. Word Biblical Commentary 31. Waco, TX: Word. 1990 Curse. Pp. 1218–19 in vol. 1 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday. Sweeney, M. 2000 The Twelve Prophets. 2 vols. Berit Olam. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press. 2007 I and II Kings. Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. Weiser, A. 1985 Die Propheten Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadja, Jona, Micha: Übersetzt und erklärt. Das Alte Testament Deutsch 24. 3rd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

228

James Nogalski

Wolff, H. W. 1977 Joel and Amos: A Commentary on the Books of the Prophets Joel and Amos, trans. W. Janzen, S. D. McBride Jr., and C. A. Muenchow. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress.

Curse, Covenant, and Temple in the Book of Haggai John Kessler Tyndale University College and Seminary

Introduction The book of Haggai opens with a prophetic invective directed against the community in Yehud, set in the early years of the reign of the Persian king, Darius. 1 In vv. 3–11 the prophet declares that the community’s experience of drought, poor harvests, and economically ruinous conditions constitutes evidence of Yahweh’s displeasure at its inattention to the reconstruction of the temple. 2 Now therefore thus says the Lord of hosts: Consider how you have fared. You have sown much, and harvested little; you eat, but you never 1.  On the dating of the “second year of Darius” see Wolff 1988: 75–76; Kessler 1992; 2002a: 80–85. 2.  In the broader ANE tradition, the sins of a land’s populace could arouse the anger of the gods and result in the destruction of its cult sites, the devastation of the land, and the diminution of its fertility. This motif appears certain of the inscriptions of Esarhaddon (see, for example inscriptions 113, lines 8b-15a and 114 [commonly known as Bab. D], lines 1.7–18 in Leichty 2011: 229–30, 236) and that of Arak-din-ili (cited in Ambos 2010: 225). Inversely, in Gudea, Cylinder A 11 (translation in Hurowitz 1992: 322), the temple’s restoration brings renewed fertility. It is important to note that in these texts this infertility did not in itself constitute sufficient ground for the undertaking of a temple’s restoration. It was incumbent on any would-be builder to make absolutely certain of divine approval for the project, lest the divine anger be still unabated, and horrible consequences be unleashed on him (Novotny 2010: 114–15; see also the examples given in Ambos 2010: 224–26, regarding restoration undertaken or performed improperly). Generally, this reassurance was given through astronomical phenomena, dreams, omens, extispicy, or the discovery of the temple’s earlier foundations (see the examples and discussion in Hurowitz, 1992: 143–63; and Novotny 2010: 114–15). In Haggai, by contrast, the evidences of divine anger in 1:3–11 stem from the neglect of the work of the temple’s reconstruction and are intended to move the community to undertake it. There is no question of the need for further signs or confirmations. The prophet expects the community to have already realized their obligation, and views their procrastination as the cause of the land’s infertility and their economic woes. On this, see also Kessler 1998; 2002b; 2010.

229

230

John Kessler

have enough; you drink, but you never have your fill; you clothe yourselves, but no one is warm; and you that earn wages earn wages to put them into a bag with holes. You have looked for much, and, lo, it came to little; and when you brought it home, I blew it away. Why? says the Lord of hosts. Because my house lies in ruins, while all of you hurry off to your own houses. Therefore the heavens above you have withheld the dew, and the earth has withheld its produce. And I have called for a drought on the land and the hills, on the grain, the new wine, the oil, on what the soil produces, on human beings and animals, and on all their labors. (Hag 1:5–6, 9–11, NRSV) 3

Readers familiar with biblical texts such as Deuteronomy 28, Leviticus 26, Amos 4: 6–12, and Mic 6:9–16, as well as the treaty texts of Esarhaddon, and the Sefire and Tell-Fekherye inscriptions 4 will immediately recognize that Haggai’s language closely resembles the curses to be meted out for covenant violation in these texts. This similarity, however, raises two closely related questions. First, why does Haggai use this language and what does it reveal regarding the book’s view of the status of the Sinai covenant in the early Persian period? Second, on what basis has temple reconstruction, not normally a stock component of Israel’s obligations in either the deuteronomic or Priestly covenantal traditions, come to be seen as an obligation in Haggai? 5 This study will address these two significant questions. 3. All biblical citations are from the NRSV except where cited loosely. Similar language appears in 2:15–17 to describe the situation prior to the refoundation ceremony performed on the emerging temple structure. I cannot explore the relationship between the “curse language” in Haggai 2 and that of Haggai 1 in this study. For the position that 2:15–19 concerns the temple’s ceremonial refoundation, see Kessler 2002a: 206–11; 2010; Petersen 1985; Meyers and Meyers 1987. 4.  In this study, I will use these biblical texts as representative points of comparison to Haggai, because they contain significant concentrations of curse vocabulary. This language does, of course, appear elsewhere in the HB. See the survey of this language in the prophets in Stuart 1987: xxii–xl; Treaty of Esarhaddon: ANET 534–41; Wiseman 1958; Sefire: Fitzmyer 1967; Lemaire and Durand 1984. See also Morrow 2001. TellFekherye: Abou-Assaf et al. 1982; Millard and Bordreuil 1982; Greenfield and Shaffer 1983; Greenfield and Shaffer 1985. 5.  For simplicity’s sake, I will use the more general term deuteronomic to designate the ideology generally associated with the book of Deuteronomy and the other texts and redactions commonly associated with it. For this approach to the terminological issues, see Blenkinsopp 1999. Regarding Haggai’s association of temple building with the Sinai covenant, David Petersen (1985: 50) states, “Such a view represents a significant reformulation of the covenant norms, focusing in the cult center per se, something that is markedly absent from other covenant stipulations preserved in the Hebrew Bible.”

Curse, Covenant, and Temple in the Book of Haggai

231

Preliminary Considerations The Book of Haggai In this study, the name Haggai refers both to the prophet and to the book that bears his name. Elsewhere, I have argued that it is extremely difficult to make any far-reaching distinctions concerning the perspective of the prophet as opposed to that of his editors based on differences between the oracles and the redactional framework, or between various levels of redactional activity in the book (Kessler 2002: 31–57; Floyd 1995). This is, of course, not to deny that these elements may not be distinguished. 6 It is simply that the degree of integration between the oracles and redactional material, the distinct subject matter dealt with by each, and most especially, the tight literary structuring to which the oracles have been subjected and into which they have been set, precludes much peering below the surface level. 7 In this study, therefore, I will not attempt to distinguish between the perspective of the book’s oracles and redactional framework. With Wöhrle (2006) and Boda (2003, 2007), and in contrast to many alternative approaches, I view Haggai to have substantially reached its present form independently of Zechariah 1–8 or Malachi, and before its integration into any larger prophetic collection. 8 And like Boda and Wöhrle, I view Haggai as reflecting an earlier glimpse into Yehudite life and thought than that of much of Zechariah and of Malachi. It thus stands “downstream” from substantial portions of the Priestly and deuteronomic literature and earlier forms of various prophetic books, but “upstream” from Zechariah 1–8 and 9–14, Malachi, and various additions to and redactional links between earlier prophetic works. I date the production of the book to a time not long after (perhaps a few years, at most) the ritual refoundation and reconsecration alluded to in 2:10, 18, 20, usually calculated to December 19, 520 B.C.E. 6.  Numerous suggestions have been proposed. See esp. Wolff 1988; Wöhrle 2006. 7.  On the literary structure of the book in its present form (notwithstanding some small later retouches, see Kessler 2002a: 247–51. 8.  Meyers and Meyers (1987) view Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 as a single work. Sérandour (1995; 1996), following Bosshard and Kratz (1990) sees Haggai in its present form as a fully integrated part of a Haggai-Zechariah-Malachi corpus. Nogalski (1993: 221–37; 272–73; 278–79) suggests that redactional activity on the book of Haggai in an earlier form served to link it more closely to Zechariah 1–8, creating a literary unity that was subsequently incorporated into the Book of the Twelve. For a survey of various hypotheses regarding the formation of a Haggai-Zechariah-Malachi corpus and its integration into the Book of the Twelve, see Boda 2003, 2007.

232

John Kessler

The Traditio-historical Rooting of Haggai 1:1–11; 2:15–17 Allusions to national or personal misfortune as judgments or curses, sent as signs of divine displeasure, may be found throughout the HB. 9 Concentrations of these “curse materials” sometimes appear in passages containing strong intertextual links to Hag 1:1–11 and 2:15–17. These sections include Deuteronomy 28, Leviticus 26, 1 Kgs 8:31–53, Amos 4:6–12, and Mic 6:9–16. These passages are generally considered to have reached their present form at a time previous to or contemporaneous with the production of Haggai. Before beginning our discussion of the use of these traditional materials in Haggai, a brief, noncomprehensive survey of the intertextual allusions within these “cursings” is in order. 10 This will better enable us to ascertain the traditions on which Haggai has drawn and the unique use that has been made of them in the book. Hag 1:6a states, “You have sown much, and harvested little.” This closely parallels Deut 28:38, “You shall carry much seed into the field but shall gather little in, for the locust shall consume it.” Similarly, Lev 26:16b warns, “You shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it.” Mic 6:15a declares, “You shall sow, but not reap.” 11 Hag 1:6b declares, “You eat, but you never have enough.” The phrase “to eat and be satisfied” is a stock deuteronomic idiom for eating all one desires (Deut 6:11; 8:10, 12; 11:15; 14:29; 26:12; 31:20). The concept of eating without satisfaction similarly appears in the judgment formulas in Hos 4:10: “They shall eat, but not be satisfied; they shall play the whore, but not multiply because they have forsaken the Lord”; Mic 6:14: “You shall eat, but not be satisfied, and there shall be a gnawing hunger within you”; and Lev 26:26: “When I break your staff of bread, ten women shall bake your bread in a single oven, and they shall dole out your bread by weight; and though you 9.  The limitations and focus of this study preclude comparison of Haggai’s use of covenantal maledictions with that found in other ANE texts. Furthermore, although these comparisons are indeed interesting, it would be extremely difficult to prove any direct influence of these texts on the formulations of the curse material in Haggai, beyond that of general similarity of form. 10.  Space precludes the discussion of the various secondary interpretive and translational issues that appear in these passages. I simply make reference to their general themes and ideas. 11.  It is difficult to know whether the imperfects in Mic 6:14–16 refer to events that lie entirely in the future, or those which have already begun. Much turns on whether the verb in 6:13 is read, with the LXX, as a form of ‫“( הלל‬to begin”), thus Mays 1976: 143; Wolff 1990: 187; or of ‫“( הלה‬to be weak, sick”), thus Hillers 1984: 80–81. This in turn raises the question whether repentance might still be possible. If the oracle is read as an announcement of judgment (thus, Ben Zvi 2000: 159–64; Mays 1976: 144–490) this possibility is unlikely.

Curse, Covenant, and Temple in the Book of Haggai

233

eat, you shall not be satisfied.” Lack of food also features in the judgments sent to Israel in Amos 4:6: “I gave you cleanness of teeth in all your cities, and lack of bread in all your places.” Hag 1:6c laments having some drink, but not enough. 12 Mic 6:15c similarly warns, “You shall tread grapes, but not drink wine.” Paucity of drink is associated with communal contention or divine judgment (Exod 17:1–7; Num 20:2–13; Deut 28:39), while abundance of food and drink signifies the reverse (Exod 23:25; Deut 11:10–12; 14:26). Hag 1:6d speaks of the lamentable situation of dressing but not being warm. Lack of both water and clothing are set forth in Deut 28:47–48a, “Because you did not serve the Lord your God joyfully and with gladness of heart for the abundance of everything, therefore you shall serve your enemies whom the Lord will send against you, in hunger and thirst, in nakedness and lack of everything.” Economic privation is similarly an important theme in the curse material. Hag 1:6d declares, “You that earn wages earn wages to put them into a bag with holes.” Concretely, this may refer to life under Persian hegemony, where taxes and other obligations consumed much of the province’s income (cf. Neh 5:4, 14–15). But the curse of penury and loss of wealth are expressed elsewhere in a more generalized way. Deut 28:33 declares, “A people whom you do not know shall eat up the fruit of your ground and of all your labors,” and Deut 28:63a warns, “And just as the Lord took delight in making you prosperous and numerous, so the Lord will take delight in bringing you to ruin and destruction.” Mic 6:14b threatens, “You shall put away, but not save, and what you save, I will hand over to the sword.” In Hag 1:9a, Yahweh takes responsibility for inflicting the hardships on the community: “You have looked for much, and, lo, it came to little; and when you brought it home, I blew it away.” Similar thoughts are expressed in 2:16–17, “When one came to a heap of 20 measures, there were but 10; when one came to the wine vat to draw 50 measures, there were but 20. I struck you and all the products of your toil with blight and mildew and hail.” The imagery of “blight and mildew” recalls the curse language of Deut 28:22, 1 Kgs 8:37, and Amos 4:9. Hail recalls the plague on the Egyptians (Exod 9:18–19, 22–26, 28–29, 33–34). The imagery of Hag 1:10, “Therefore the heavens above you have withheld the dew, and the earth has withheld its produce,” resonates with that of Lev 26:19, “I will break your proud glory, and I will make your sky like iron and your earth like copper,” Deut 11:17a, “for then the anger of the 12.  Scholars are divided as to whether the satisfaction here refers to the quenching of thirst or to the effects of alcohol.

234

John Kessler

Lord will be kindled against you and he will shut up the heavens, so that there will be no rain and the land will yield no fruit,” and Deut 28:23–24, “The sky over your head shall be bronze, and the earth under you iron. The Lord will change the rain of your land into powder, and only dust shall come down upon you from the sky until you are destroyed.” Lack of rain also features in Amos 4:7, “And I also withheld the rain from you when there were still three months to the harvest; I would send rain on one city, and send no rain on another city; one field would be rained upon, and the field on which it did not rain withered.” 1 Kgs 8:35–36 similarly sees drought as a consequence of sin: “When heaven is shut up and there is no rain because they have sinned against you, and then they pray toward this place, confess your name, and turn from their sin, because you punish them, then hear in heaven, and forgive the sin of your servants, your people Israel, when you teach them the good way in which they should walk; and grant rain on your land, which you have given to your people as an inheritance.” Even this cursory and preliminary survey reveals the close affinity between Haggai’s formulations and the curse language of both deuteronomic and Priestly literature (as evident in Deuteronomy 28 and Leviticus 26, respectively), as well as the traditions in Hosea and Micah, whose traditiohistorical rooting is still the object of scholarly debate. 13 Most important is the fact that in all these traditions these curses are attached to violations of Israel’s covenantal duties as enumerated at Sinai. 14 As noted above, this raises two highly significant and interrelated questions. First, how does Haggai understand the relationship between the 13. Leviticus 26 belongs more properly to that form of Priestly literature produced by the so-called Holiness School. This study, however, does not require a discussion of the relationship between the Priestly Torah and the Holiness School. On this distinction, see Knohl 1995; Wright 1999; Nihan 2007. On the reception of deuteronomic conceptions by the Holiness School see p.241 n. 24. For examples of this scholarly debate, many see evidence of deuteronomic editing of earlier material in Amos and Micah (Wolff 1977: 112–13; 1990: 26–27). However, see also E. Ben Zvi’s words of caution (1999). 14.  Although it is likely the Priestly conceptions regarding Yahweh’s covenant with Abraham (Genesis 17) would have been known to Haggai and his editors, there is no explicit reference to this material in the book. These curse materials point rather to Sinai. The question regarding the relationship of the Priestly material to Sinai has continued to elicit critical debate. Numerous scholars see the Priestly materials connected to Sinai as an expansion to the earlier covenant made with Abraham in Genesis 17 (Cazelles 1977). Thus, even when the Sinai legislation has been severely breached, hope may be found in the earlier promises of Genesis 17 of the perdurance of the nation as a whole. These sentiments are clearly expressed in Lev 26:40–45, esp. v. 44.

Curse, Covenant, and Temple in the Book of Haggai

235

Jerusalemite temple and the Sinai Covenant? Can it be said that Haggai views the rebuilding of the temple as a covenantal duty, and if so, on what basis is this identification made? Second, does the curse language here indicate that Haggai views the community as having profoundly violated, or even decisively broken the terms of the Sinai Covenant through its neglect of the temple? These two questions are closely connected and must be answered together.

Earlier Approaches to Curse and Covenant in Haggai The purpose of Haggai’s use of this “curse language” (specifically the “futility curse” form, Hillers 1964) has been understood in two primary ways. One group of scholars, noting the close resemblance between Haggai’s language and other treaty curses, affirms that Haggai is charging the people with severe covenant violation or even a decisive breaking of covenant through its neglect of the temple. Beuken, for example, states, “The formulaic expressions [of Hag 1:3–11] are derived from a specific type of covenant curse. Thus the difficult circumstances are understood as the result of covenant-breaking” (1967: 33). 15 Petersen echoes Beuken’s thought and observes, “reconstruction of the temple is treated as a covenant duty that, because it has not been accomplished, has brought on the futility curses of an abrogated covenant. . . . Not only are the people living an existence cursed because of the 587 disaster; their existence is also cursed because of their reaction to the result of that earlier cursing, the destruction of the temple” (1985: 50). 16 For Beuken and Petersen then, temple reconstruction has been subsumed under covenant, and failure to fulfill this duty has strained Yahweh’s relationship with the community to the breaking point (Beuken 1967: 27–34; Petersen 1985: 60). 17 In 15.  Bundesbruch. Translation mine. 16. Note however that Beuken and Petersen differ on a key point. The former maintains that the covenant is so broken that it has lapsed and must be reinstated. The latter (1985: 60) sees the imposition of its curses as an indication that it is still in force. 17.  It is frequently observed that temple building “is markedly absent from other covenant stipulations preserved in the Hebrew Bible” (Petersen 1984: 50). However, some might suggest that this sort of idea is implicit in the concept of cult centralization in Deuteronomy 12–16 and that it is from there that Haggai derived his understanding of temple rebuilding as a covenantal obligation. Thus it might be suggested that, in Haggai’s eyes, the community in Yehud was guilty of covenant violation in that, just as the incoming Israelites were called to centralize the worship of Yahweh in a specific location, so the Persian-period Yehudites, due to their inattention to the temple were guilty of a breach of an explicit demand of the Sinai covenant. This sort of approach, however, is unlikely. The demands in Deuteronomy 12–16 concern centralization of

236

John Kessler

my earlier volume on Haggai, I accepted the form-critical judgment that Haggai’s words related to covenant curses imposed for covenant violation, and concurred that Haggai had included temple reconstruction as a covenantal duty (Kessler 2002: 155–57). I suggested that Haggai may have done so on the basis of the sentiments expressed in Deut 28:58–59a, arguing that Haggai viewed neglect of the temple as a manifestation of disdain for Yahweh, and failure of reverence for the Divine Name. However at that time, and in subsequent studies, I nevertheless expressed my profound disagreement with the idea that the prophet’s words in 1:3–11 relate to cursings inherited from 587, and with the suggestion that 1:12–14 constitutes a covenant renewal. Rather, I argued that Haggai’s use of the curse vocabulary suggested that the Sinai covenant was viewed as still in force (Kessler 2002: 183–84; 2008: 148). This study will reinforce my arguments for the thesis that Haggai presupposes the Sinai covenant to be still in force but will revise my earlier conclusion regarding why Haggai associates neglect of temple reconstruction and the curse language frequently used for violation of the Sinai covenant. A second approach to Haggai’s use of traditional curse language moves in the opposite direction. It affirms that Haggai’s language is merely borworship, not temple building per se (Nelson 2002: 145–61). While Israel is to seek out the place of Yahweh’s choosing (Deut 12:5) and the construction of a central altar to Yahweh is assumed (12:6, etc.), no further, explicit building instructions are given. In Haggai, by contrast, the emphasis is clearly on the Jerusalemite temple as Yahweh’s house, its former glories and its dilapidated appearance (2:1–3). Furthermore numerous scholars suggest that some kind of altar or cult site may have existed at Jerusalem throughout the Babylonian period (see the discussion in Kessler 2002a: 88–90). Second, Haggai’s invective to his hearers is not set within an “exile and return” motif. In contrast to most of the other literature of the period, Haggai makes no explicit mention of the community at Jerusalem or its leaders as having come from somewhere else and having resettled in the land (Coggins 1987: 34–35; see also the discussion of the term ‫ שארית‬in Hag 1:12 in Kessler 2002a: 141–42). Thus, the suggestion of a parallel situation to that of the invading Israelites is inconsistent with the rest of the prophet’s thought. Third, there is no sense that Haggai’s demands regarding the Jerusalemite temple are set in the context of various competing altars, unless one accepts the earlier “Samaritan hypothesis” and sees 2:14 as a reference to the altar in Samaria. However, this sort of approach is contextually improbable and has few contemporary adherents (Kessler 2002a: 207–8; 210–11). Finally and most significantly, as I will argue below, it is the “restorationist impulse” in Haggai that provides the most likely explanation for the prophet’s insistence that the people’s neglect of temple reconstruction was indeed an offense against Yahweh within Israel’s broader relationship to Yahweh (cf. Kessler 2002a: 275–76; 2008). As we shall see on pp. 245–248 below, for Haggai, temple (re)construction was not an obligation because it formed part of the original part of the Sinai legislation but because the Jerusalemite temple had become and still remained an indispensible element of Israelite identity.

Curse, Covenant, and Temple in the Book of Haggai

237

rowed from a covenantal matrix. Thus, Tollington rejects the notion that Haggai views the people’s failure as a breach of covenant (1993: 191). Rather she suggests, “it may be that the prophet is using earlier cultic material traditionally associated with covenant concepts but is applying it to his current situation in a new way, somewhat in the style of a modern preacher” (Tollington 1993:190). She affirms, “The prophet makes no reference to any breaches of the covenant relationship by the people. [Haggai] makes his hearers consider their situation; by his choice of words he prompts them to recall the concepts of curses and Yahweh’s punishment: and he links this to the fact that the temple still lies in ruins” (1993:191–92). In a similar fashion Wolff (1988), Amsler (1988: 23–24), Verhoef (1987: 60–64; 68–78), and E. M. and C. L. Meyers (1987: 25– 34) acknowledge Haggai’s use of traditional curse material but treat it primarily as a vehicle for the expression of divine displeasure, rather than an indication that for Haggai, temple reconstruction is now seen as an obligation of the Sinai covenant. It seems to me that there are significant difficulties with both approaches. On the one hand, serious problems arise when one attempts to understand Haggai 1 as indicating a “violated covenant,” similar to the use of this language in Leviticus 26, Deuteronomy 28, Amos 4, Micah 6, and the broader ANE treaty materials. Despite the formal similarity and verbal parallels that clearly exist between Haggai 1 and these texts, a clear distinction emerges when one notes the distinctive outlook and function of the curse language in Haggai. It is precisely at this more foundational level that viewing Haggai’s “curse language” here as evidence of a severely violated (if not broken) covenant becomes quite problematic. Many of the biblical “curse materials” we surveyed earlier that bear close resemblance to Haggai (Deuteronomy 28, Leviticus 26, Amos 4, Micah 6) describe instances of profound covenant violation. In these texts, we find a series of misfortunes drawn from various spheres of life (war, famine, disease, drought), enacted as a result of the violation of the core demands of a covenantal commitment, that results in the ultimate destruction of the covenant violator. In fact, two patterns emerge in these texts. In the first, the curse material is presented as a single cataclysmic judgment, expressed without reference to how long Israel’s offensive behavior has continued, or to any calls for repentance that may have been ignored. Thus, in Deut 28:15–68, the curses serve as warnings to the nation of the horrible consequences of disobedience and enjoin absolute fidelity to Yahweh. No mention is made of prophetic warnings or opportunities for repentance as is done in 2 Kgs 17:7–20 and 24:1–4. Similarly, in Mic 6:9–16, the prophet

238

John Kessler

announces the imposition of curses and the destruction of the city (likely Jerusalem) as a result of its wrongdoing. In the second pattern these maledictions are applied incrementally and intended to produce repentance. If repentance does not occur, complete devastation ensues. Amos 4:6–11 cites numerous kinds of misfortunes (drought, famine, pestilence, military defeat) sent on the people and land, but to no avail. The refrain “and still you did not return to me” concludes each misfortune (vv. 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11). Finally, cataclysmic judgment is announced: “Therefore thus I will do to you, O Israel; because I will do this to you, prepare to meet your God, O Israel!” (Amos 4:12). Leviticus 26 contains a similar pattern. Initial disobedience will be met with the imposition of curses (vv. 14–17). But at this early stage, Yahweh’s displeasure may be removed through return and obedience (v. 18a). However, should rebellion persist, further judgment will surely follow (vv. 18b–20). But even at this point, the situation is not irremediable. Israel may either turn back to Yahweh or “continue hostile” 18 to God. Should Israel still not change its ways, further painful consequences will follow (vv. 21b–22). But even at this point, opportunity for averting greater judgment is not withdrawn (v. 23). Should Israel “continue hostile” to God, Yahweh will do so as well (v. 24), sending even greater misfortunes (vv. 24b–26). Even here, judgment need not be final (v. 27). However, should Yahweh’s mercy be once again rejected, at that point the severest judgments will be relentlessly inflicted, with no immediate possibility of relief. 19 It is only after the horrors of siege and exile, the 18. Heb., ‫הלך עמי קרי‬. This is a key term, and one that will appear at several points in the escalation of the hostility between Yahweh and Israel (Lev 26:23, 27, 40). 19.  At this point in the unraveling of Yahweh’s relationship with the nation, the destruction of Israel’s cultic centers is mentioned. Lev 26:31–32 states that Israel’s disobedience will provoke Yahweh to destroy Israel’s high places (‫במתיכם‬, v. 30) and lay waste its sanctuaries (‫מקדשיכם‬, v. 31; cf. the plurals of ‫ מקדש‬in Ezek 21:2; 28:18; Amos 7:9; Ps 68:35; 73:17). Although the MT contains the plural “sanctuaries,” 53 mss., Sam., and Syr. carry the singular. The “high places” of v. 30 are generally understood to be illicit cult sites. The referent in v. 31 is less clear. Some understand the plural as alluding to essentially polytheistic nature of the worship and a multiplicity of sites; cf. Ezek 7:24 (Gerstenberger 1996: 423). Milgrom (2000: 2317–18, 20) suggests that ‫ מקדש‬here is likely to be associated with legitimate worship, due to the reference to “pleasing odors” in v. 31b. Milgrom suggests that Leviticus 26 largely originates in the 8th century, and presupposes numerous legitimate Yahweh sanctuaries (Milgrom 2000: 2320). Other alternative explanations may be proposed for the plural: a scribal error, a reference to the various parts or elements of the temple or its sancta (cf. Lev 21:23), or a plural of majesty (cf. Ps 73:17). More promising, in my opinion, is the suggestion that the emphasis falls on the pronominal suffix: your sanctuaries (not mine; see Hartley 1992: 467–68). Indeed, three out of the five appearances of ‫ מקדש‬in the plural are denunciations of Israel’s religious hypocrisy (Ezek 21:2; 28:18; Amos 7:9). One might suggest that,

Curse, Covenant, and Temple in the Book of Haggai

239

destruction of the cities, and desolation of the land that hopes of renewal can be entertained (vv. 27b–35). 20 In any case, all of these texts refer to curses of various kinds, sent in response to the willful rejection of the known and understood core values of a covenant, agreed to by the nation, and leading to its ultimate doom and destruction. In Hag 1:3–11 however, we find ourselves in a very different ideological context. The prophet points to a limited number of misfortunes (there is no reference to war, or national humiliation, as in Amos 4, Leviticus 26, Deuteronomy 28) drawn from the actual experience of the community. To this end, Haggai sets forth specific examples of agricultural failure and economic difficulties. Furthermore, these specific misfortunes are not seen as arising from violations of any of the demands of the Sinai Covenant. No crimes against its stipulations are alluded to. The community’s only fault is its neglect of the temple’s reconstruction. What is more, the maledictions in Haggai 1 are applied nonincrementally and without any threat of further catastrophic judgment. There is no implication that neglect of the reconstruction, left unchecked, would result in anything other than continued poverty and distress. Surely, these core dissimilarities call for caution before assuming too close an identification between Haggai’s words and those texts that describe core violations of the Sinai covenant, leading to complete destruction. On the other hand, viewing Haggai’s language here as only peripherally related to the Sinai covenant seems somewhat unlikely in a late 6thcentury context. The language of malediction used in Hag 1:3–11 (and 2:15–17) so closely parallels that of the clearly covenantal texts we have been examining that it would appear extremely difficult to use this vocabulary without implying some connection between the fault for which beginning with Amos 7:9 (where ‫ במה‬and ‫ מקדש‬both appear in the plural), the plural of ‫ מקדש‬came to be anticipated in contexts of judgement, in a similar way that the near demonstrative pronoun is employed in such contexts (Exod 32:9, 21, 31; 33:12; Num 11:11–14; Deut 9:27; 31:16; 1 Kgs 12:6–7, 27; Isa 6:9–10; 8:6; 28:14; 29:13; Jer 5:14; 7:16, 33; Mic 2:11; Hag 1:2; 2:14), whereas elsewhere the simple definite article would be adequate. Thus, the central issue in Lev 26:31 might be better understood as falling on the certainty of the coming judgment, rather than discussions of precisely which sanctuaries might be involved. In any case, it seems clear that, according to virtually any of the above proposals, the destruction of the Jerusalemite temple is foreseen. Priestly thought, to be sure, could accommodate this sort of eventuality through the notion of the departure of Yahweh’s glory (Ezekiel 1–11). In Haggai, however, not much is made of the destruction of the temple per se. It is seen as a past event, the evidence of which remains and must be remedied. However, it is noteworthy that Haggai does not appear to make any specific allusion in his curse material to Lev 26:30–31. 20.  On this, see Levine 1987.

240

John Kessler

punishment is sent and concepts of Israel’s broader relationship to Yahweh ratified at Sinai. By the late 6th century, covenantal ideologies were a core component of both deuteronomic and Priestly traditions. 21 Thus, viewing the use of Haggai’s curse language as a mere rhetorical device gives too little weight to the importance that such traditional formulations, commonly associated with Sinai, would have held. Similarly, to suppose that Haggai’s interests lie exclusively with the Jerusalemite temple and Zion traditions, is highly improbable, because this sort of assumption implies a degree of compartmentalization of traditions that strains against the widely acknowledged merging of traditions current in the period (Ackroyd 1977; Mason 1982:141–42; Kohn 2002).

Patterns of Covenant Violation in Priestly and Deuteronomic Traditions We have seen that the language of Hag 1:3–11 resists both an interpretive stance that abstracts all covenantal considerations from view, as well as one that implies that temple reconstruction has simply been integrated into the stipulations of the Sinai covenant and taken its place alongside its other requirements. One must therefore ask, is there a way of retaining a broadly covenantal framework for Haggai’s words, without assuming that the prophet has made the reconstruction of the temple a covenantal obligation, the neglect of which has severely damaged or even broken the Sinai covenant? It seems to me that the way forward must begin with the recognition that within the broader deuteronomic and Priestly traditions there are two patterns involving offense against covenantal norms, and the consequent judgment of this violation. In the interest of simplicity, I will refer to these two patterns as “violation of covenant” on the one hand, and “violation in covenant” on the other. Deuteronomy 28, 2 Kgs 17:1–19, Amos 3:2, 4:1–13, chaps. 7–8, Hosea 1–3, and Mic 6:9–16 manifest the pattern of “violation of covenant.” These texts refer to the consistent and wilful violation of various known and agreed-to covenantal obligations lying at the very heart of the relationship between the two parties. This kind of violation brings about the imposition of “covenant curses.” As we have seen, these misfortunes 21.  The curse list in Leviticus 26 demonstrates how deeply entrenched a full-blown covenantal formulation of this relationship had become in Priestly thought by the late 6th century. For the relationship of Priestly and covenantal ideas, see especially Nihan 2007: 395–575, 616–17; Knohl 1995; Ska 2006:152, esp. n. 88. However, for a differing approach, see Joosten 1996: 196–203. On the relationship of Leviticus 26 to Deuteronomy 28 and Ezekiel, see Hartley 1992: 457–62; Kohn 2002.

Curse, Covenant, and Temple in the Book of Haggai

241

punish the offender and escalate as long as disobedience persists. If these warnings are ignored, the full weight of the covenant curses is applied, and cataclysmic judgment ensues, generally involving invasion, exile, death of a significant portion of the population, the cessation of national existence, and the suspension (or termination) of the covenantal relationship. This sort of pattern is generally understood to be a core component of deuteronomic thought. It is a significant component of priestly ideology as well (Boda 2006; 2010: 82–85). 22 The second pattern, “violation in covenant” also appears in both deuteronomic and Priestly texts. This pattern involves specific sins that are committed within a broader relationship, and the specific consequences that result from them. Although serious, these transgressions do not threaten the broader relationship at its core. According to this pattern, when the people of Yahweh, individually or collectively, commit a specific sin, certain very specific judgments are sent. The purpose of these misfortunes is to draw attention to the specific point of fault and demand a specific remedy. The fault that has been committed essentially “freezes” the relationship between the respective parties. A few examples of this pattern may be cited here. Achan’s violation of the ban in Joshua 7, a text that reflects both deuteronomic and Priestly motifs, 23 portrays a single act with a single consequence demanding a specific resolution. 1 Sam 14:24–46 recounts the withholding of a word from Yahweh arising from Jonathan’s violation of Saul’s ban on consuming food. 2 Sam 21:1–9 describes a drought that has been sent due to Saul’s treatment of the Gibeonites and is not resolved until the problem is addressed. At times prophets are involved in identifying the sin and declaring the way toward resolution (2 Sam 21:1; 2 Sam 12:1–3). However, the text in which this motif is most extensively developed is Solomon’s prayer in 1 Kgs 8:14–61. This passage is generally assumed to 22.  On the fate of the covenant subsequent to such sustained rebellion see, among others, Levine 1987; Olyan 2008; Kessler 2008: 19–24. 23.  Joshua as a whole is widely understood to manifest both Priestly and Deuteronomistic elements (Römer and Brettler 2000). Joshua 7 contains elements of both traditions. Deuteronomic themes include the ‫חרם‬, Jos 7:1, 11, 12–13, 15 (cf. Deut 2:34; 3:6; 7:2, 26; 13:18[17]; 20:17; Josh 2:10; 6:17–18) and transgression of Yahweh’s covenant, Josh 7:10–11 (cf. Deut 7:12; Josh 23:16; Judg 2:20). Priestly motifs include breaking faith (‫ )מעל‬regarding consecrated things or other significant matters, Josh 7:1 (cf. Lev 5:15; 26:40; Num 5:6, 12, 27; 31:16; Josh 22:16, 20, 22, 31; Ezek 14:13; 15:8; 17:20; 18:24; 20:27; 39:26) and confession of sin (Hithpael of ‫)ידה‬, Josh 7:19 (cf. Lev 5:5; 16:21; 26:40; Num 5:7). On the Priestly motifs, see esp. Boda 2010: 129–31.

242

John Kessler

be deuteronomic, with some evidence of Priestly redaction. 24 In it, Solomon assumes that should the community in whole or part sin, Yahweh will afflict it with various misfortunes. These misfortunes are strikingly similar to those found in the curse lists of Deuteronomy 28 and Leviticus 26. 25 This likely implies that these unnamed sins are those defined by the broader covenantal framework established at Sinai.  26 Talstra notes that in contrast to the long lists of misfortunes sent on people for covenant disobedience in Deuteronomy 28 and Amos 4, 1 Kings 8 describes various “cases” as part of an “affliction-prayer-forgiveness-retribution” schema (Talstra 1993). Thus, the “covenant curses” of the broader tradition are shifted to a more focused “case-by-case” application. They become “afflictions” (to use Talstra’s term) sent to alert the individual or community of a specific fault, requiring a concrete remedy. Thus, in 1 Kgs 8:31–40, 46– 53 these misfortunes are not so much covenant curses, per se, but rather indications of divine disapproval regarding some aspect of the ongoing life of the individual or the nation, within its covenantal relationship with Yahweh. These do not pose a threat to the covenant as a whole. 27 They are violations in or under covenant rather than violations of covenant. Furthermore, it is highly significant that in 1 Kings 8 few specifics are given regarding the nature of the sins committed. Notice is simply taken of the people’s having “sinned” (‫ יחטאו‬in 1 Kgs 8:33, 35, 46, 50 and ‫ פשעו‬in v. 50). The parenthetical notice in Solomon’s prayer in 8:46 that “there is no one who does not sin” sets the various cases enumerated in the prayer in a context of human frailty, rather than cold-hearted rebellion. 28 The tone here is entirely different from that of the menacing and threatening curse of utter destruction in the deuteronomic traditions 29 or, to use 24.  Long 1984: 103; Boda 2010: 166; Knoppers 1993: 94–95; Römer and Brettler 2000: 414. 25.  See the examples cited on pp. 232–234 above and the linguistic commonalities noted on p. 243 below. 26.  Boda concludes, “Its categories of calamities are closely related to the curse materials found in Deuteronomy 28–30 and Leviticus 26 suggesting that the prayer is being conceptualized within the framework of the covenant” (2010: 167). Boda notes the studies of Wolff (1977: 212–28) and Talstra (1993: 118–19, 186) in this regard. 27.  Verses 46–51 form something of an exception to the general pattern, in that the sin and consequence seem to imply a core violation of covenant resulting in exile and loss of land. But even here, the covenant is not depicted as “broken.” 28.  In this sense they seem to stand closer to the ‫ בשגגה‬sins (sins of inadvertence or sins of human frailty) in the Priestly tradition (Lev 4:2, 22, 27; 5:15, 18; 22:14; Num 15:24–29; 35:11, 15; cf. also Josh 20:3, 9), contrasted with the “high-handed sins” (‫ )רמה ביד‬that are not eligible for cultic remediation (cf. Num 15:30–31). 29. Thus, ‫שמד‬, Deut 4:26; 6:15; 7:4; 28:20, 24, 45, 48, 51, 61, 63; or ‫אבד‬, Deut 4:26; 8:19; 11:17; 28:20, 22, 51, 63; 30:18.

Curse, Covenant, and Temple in the Book of Haggai

243

the Priestly turn of phrase, the “vengeance of the covenant” (Lev 26:25; cf. Deut 32:35, 41, 43). 30 Rather, there is a certain “inevitability” about the failures and consequences described in the passage. The basic means through which the various cases of sin and affliction can be remedied are expressed in v. 33 (and repeated, with some variations in vv. 35, 47–48): the guilty must return to Yahweh (‫)שוב‬, confess (‫ ידה‬Hithpael) the name of Yahweh, pray (‫ פלל‬Hithpael), and plead (‫ חנן‬Hithpael) in (or toward) this house (‫ ;הזה בבית‬cf. Hag 1:4). When set against these two patterns, Haggai’s words clearly bear far greater similarity to violations “in covenant” than to violations “of covenant.” No earlier warnings have been given and ignored, no further calamities are threatened, no appeal is made to earlier acts of divine beneficence or to the nation’s earlier commitments or obligations. Haggai simply identifies a specific reason for the particular misfortunes that the community is experiencing. Amsler (1981:23) insightfully observes, “the prophet begins by asking those who have resigned themselves to the situation to realize that they are in reality at an impasse from which they can only emerge through a new act of obedience.” 31 The emphatic use of ‫ מה יען‬and ‫ יען‬in 1:9 and ‫ על־כן‬in 1:10 underscores this cause-and-effect relationship between neglect of the temple and the people’s misfortunes. This similarity of outlook is further reinforced through the numerous verbal parallels that exist between the consequences for sin described in 1 Kgs 8:31–53 and those enumerated in Hag 1:3–11 and 2:15–17. The famine (‫ )רעב‬of 1 Kgs 8:37 is reflected in agricultural paucity in Hag 1:6, 11; 2:16. The term “blight” (‫ )שדפון‬in 1 Kgs 8:37 appears in Hag 2:17 (cf. Deut 28:22; Amos 4:9; 2 Chr 6:28). Similarly, the mildew mentioned in 1 Kgs 8:37 (‫ )ירקון‬recurs in Hag 2:17 (cf. Deut 28:22; Jer 30:6; Amos 4:9; 2 Chr 6:28). The shutting up of the heavens and the failure of rain (1 Kgs 8:35) are echoed in Hag 1:10. 32 Even more significantly, the temple­plays a decisive role in obtaining relief from the divinely sent afflictions in both texts. As we have noted, in 1 Kings 8 prayer in (v. 33) or toward (v. 35) the temple, accompanied by returning and seeking divine mercy, opens the way for divine forgiveness. In Haggai, the afflictions of drought, crop disease and economic privation can be removed through the act of undertaking the rebuilding of the temple (Hag 1:8) and ritually purifying it (2:15–17). The ideological matrix of Haggai is thus far closer to the 30.  ‫נקם־ברית‬ 31.  Translation mine. 32.  The phrase ‫( מטל‬from “dew”) in Hag 1:10 is close to ‫“( מטר‬rain”) in 1 Kgs 8:35 cf. Targumim.

244

John Kessler

violation­in covenant pattern of 1 Kings 8, than to that found in Deuteronomy 28, Leviticus 26 and the various prophetic texts cited above.

Curse, Covenant, and Temple in Haggai: Implications The recognition that Haggai stands in close proximity to the pattern of “violation in covenant,” particularly as evidenced in 1 Kgs 8:31–53, has two important implications. The first of these relates to Haggai’s view of the status of the Sinai covenant vis-à-vis the community in Yehud. 33 Nothing in Hag 1:3–11 or 2:15–17 refers to a covenant that has been damaged or shattered and must be restored. Nor are there any warnings that ongoing disobedience runs the risk of total destruction. No covenant renewal is demanded or undertaken. All that is required to remedy the situation is demanded in Hag 1:8: “go up to the mountain, get wood, and build my house” and then narrated in 1:14, “And the Lord stirred up the spirit of Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and the spirit of Joshua son of Jehozadak, the high priest, and the spirit of all the remnant of the people; and they came and worked on the house of the Lord of hosts, their God.” 34 Furthermore, Hag 1:8b contains the firm assurance that, should the work be performed, divine acceptance will follow. Yahweh thus declares, “I will be pleased, and glorified” (Hag 1:8b). 35 Thus, just as in 1 Kgs 8:31–53, the various instances of sin and restoration should not be construed as a breaking of the covenant followed by covenant renewal, so too in Haggai the demand for obedience in 1:8 and the brief narrative of the community’s obedience to the prophet’s words (1:12–14) and its rededication of the temple (2:15–19) should be seen as transpiring within the context of the existing relationship established at Sinai. The use of curse vocabulary drawn from the broader linguistic stock of deuteronomic and Priestly Sinai covenant traditions situates the particular transgression causing the relational disruption within this broader covenantal relationship as a whole. However, although neglect of the temple’s reconstruction had brought serious consequences to the Yehudite community, and represented a failure within the divine-human relationship, it did not constitute a wholesale undermining of Israel’s covenant with Yahweh. 33.  On the relevance of the textually difficult Hag 2:5a to the question of Haggai’s view of the Sinai covenant, see Kessler 2014. 34.  Wöhrle (2006) rightly notes that it is the act of building (Hag 1:8, 12–14) that constitutes the community’s obedience to Yahweh’s will. In Zechariah, by contrast, the community must turn away from the disobedience of earlier generations and return (‫ )שוב‬to Yahweh. On this, see also Boda 2003. 35.  On the translation of Hag 1:8b as indicating the assurance of Yahweh’s acceptance of the people’s labor, see Kessler 2002a: 105, 133–36.

Curse, Covenant, and Temple in the Book of Haggai

245

The second implication of this identification of Haggai 1 with a “violation in covenant” pattern is relevant for Haggai’s perspective on the relationship between covenant and temple. It is noteworthy that, certain differences notwithstanding, both Haggai 1 and 1 Kings 8 make a close association between the Sinai covenant and the Jerusalemite temple. 1 Kings 8 sets the concepts of covenant, temple, and monarchy in a common overarching structure. 36 The narrative in 1 Kgs 8:1–13 focuses on the bond created between temple and covenant. In 8:1, Solomon calls the key representatives of the older tribal and familial structure 37 to join in the bringing up of “the ark of the covenant of Yahweh” (vv. 1, 6) from Zion, the city of David. The ark crystallizes and represents the deuteronomic understanding of Israel’s earlier covenant relationship with Yahweh (1 Kgs 8:21). The ark is then deposited in the most holy place, underneath the wings of the cherubim (vv. 6–7). Now the ark is definitively housed in the temple and is no longer “portable.” The divine presence, represented by the cloud 38 comes to dwell within the temple, signifying both the divine approval of Solomon’s work, and the fact that the temple has now superseded the the ark and its tent (1 Sam 2:22; 17:54; 2 Sam 6:17; 7:2, 6) as the locus of the divine dwelling. Knoppers has summarized how 1 Kings 8 presents the construction and inauguration of the temple as the culmination of Yahweh’s intention for the ark and for Israelite ritual, and the role of the monarchy with reference to it. He states, Indeed, it seems that in 1 Kings 8 the Deuteronomist is anxious to project an image of Solomon as a curator and guarantor of his nation’s most sacred traditions. I would argue, however, that this stress upon Solomon’s piety deliberately downplays the innovation involved in establishing the cultus of Solomon’s royal shrine as normative for the whole people . . . the Deuteronomist not only integrates traditional institutions­into the temple cultus, he weds these institutions, and the temple itself, to 36. However the redactional history of this section is understood, it is likely to have reached much of its present form by late 6th century. Thus, its general outlook would have been current, at least in certain circles, at the time Haggai was produced. For Römer, 1 Kgs 8:1–6, 12–21, 62, and 63b constitute an earlier core, dating from the 7th century, which was then supplemented in an exilic edition, to more or less its present form (Römer 2007: 100, 149). See also Knoppers 1993:103–12 for a detailed discussion of Solomon’s prayer and a defense of a largely preexilic dating for it. 37.  These include the “elders of Israel and all the heads of the tribes, the leaders­of the ancestral houses of the Israelites.” The term “elders of Israel” (‫ )זקני ישראל‬is more general, while the subsequent designations are essentially Priestly (Cogan 2001: 278) and lacking in the LXX-B. Knoppers (1993: 98) sees the Priestly writer as “elaborat[ing] on the view of the Deuteronomist that the temple maintains and fulfills traditional cultic arrangements.” 38.  Again, a Priestly representation (Cogan 2001: 280–81).

246

John Kessler

kingship­. In doing so, he transforms older arrangements. Both king and temple are integral to national life. . . . The Deuteronomist authorizes the new by associating it with the old. Yet in presenting the temple as a permanent place for the ark . . . [he] subordinates the ark to the temple. 39

Following this transition, the ark is lost from view, and it is not mentioned again. Its loss and its fate in the destructions of the early 6th century are not recounted in Kings (or Jeremiah). 40 It is important to note, however, that, while the subordination of the ark to the temple and its ultimate “disappearance” indicate a reframing of older, cultic arrangements, it does not signal a diminution of the importance of the Sinai covenant, along with its duties and obligations. Obedience to the demands of the covenant is a theme that pervades Deuteronomy–2 Kings. 41 In Deut 31:25–26 Moses commands the Levites to place the book of the Law beside (‫ )מצד‬the ark of the covenant, which according to Deut 10:1–3, 5 (cf. 1 Kgs 8:9) contained the tablets given to Moses at Sinai. In 1 Sam 12:25, Israel is warned that disobedience to Yahweh will result in the destruction of king and people. Great attention is focused on the “book of the law” (Deut 28:58, 61; 29:20[21]; 30:10; 31:24, 26; Josh 1:8; 8:31, 34; 23:6; 24:26; 2 Kgs 14:6; 22:8, 11) and the “law of Moses” (Deut 31:9, 24; 33:4; Josh 8:31–32; 23:6; 1 Kgs 2:3; 2 Kgs 14:6; 21:8; 23:25; Ezra 3:2; 7:6; Neh 8:1, 14) from Deuteronomy to 2 Kings, and in Ezra and Nehemiah. 42 Thus, in these texts, the stipulations of the Sinai covenant constitute the means through which the community’s fidelity to Yahweh is to be expressed both before the advent of monarchy or temple and in the absence of the ark, temple, 43 and monarchy. Put another 39.  Knoppers 1993: 113–15. This forms an interesting contrast to the view held by Petersen (1985: 50) that Haggai has subordinated temple to covenant. 40.  The oracle of Jer 3:14–18 foresees its complete disappearance. On this text, see Lundbom 1999: 314 and the literature cited there. It is strikingly absent in the texts stemming from the 6th century and later that deal with the temple’s reconstruction (Haggai; Zechariah 1–8; Ezra 1–6;) or “covenantal renewal” (Zech 1:1–6; Ezra 9–10; Nehemiah 5; 9–11, 13). All of these texts portray, in one way or another, a recommitment to the demands of the Sinai covenant. The question to what degree any one of them should be viewed as a renewal of that covenant cannot be discussed here. 41.  This motif is often seen as the hallmark of the “nomistic redaction” of the deuteronomic material. Space precludes a full discussion of the origins and development of the theory of this sort of redaction and scholarly reaction to it. For a survey of the extensive discussion associated with the DH and its redactional history, see Knoppers and Greer 2013. For a shorter survey, see Römer 2007: 29–35; Lipschits 2005: 283–89. 42.  On this theme, see Römer 2007: 51, 176. Römer dates these texts to the exilic or early Persian period. 43.  See the insightful discussion of the “spatial” aspect of God’s presence in the absence of the temple in Moore and Kohn 2007. See also the discussion of the various

Curse, Covenant, and Temple in the Book of Haggai

247

way, for these writers, even in the absence of the temple, or of a ruling Davidide, the relationship established by the Sinai covenant remains. But what of the future? Questions regarding the ongoing validity and future form of the institutions of covenant, monarchy, and temple were clearly the object of extensive reflection in the literature stemming from the 7th to 4th centuries. 44 Various traditions gave differing responses to these matters, but the significance and the future of all three institutions elicited lively debate. 45 Knoppers has suggested that 1–2 Kings implicitly affirms the importance of the reconstruction of the temple. He states (2006: 235), “The standards rejected by Manasseh and the people triumph. . . . The written narrative safeguards the status of the temple as an institution so that, if conditions ever allow, there will be no question about whether and where to rebuild.” 46 Similarly, 2 Kgs 25:27–30 offers a “glimmer of hope” regarding the future of the Davidic line (Knoppers 2006: 222). The book of Haggai resonates with a similar perspective, but in much bolder tones. Our prophet views covenant, temple, and monarchy as equally significant, without subordinating one to the other. Thus, neglect of the temple’s reconstruction merits divine disapproval not because temple building has become a stipulation of the covenant but rather because the temple, together with the monarchy, had come to stand alongside the covenant in importance, connected to it, but not subsumed under it. This, it seems to me, is why he insists so strongly on the reconstruction of the temple (Hag 1:1–11; 2; 10–19) and hopes so passionately for the restoration of Davidic rule (Hag 2:20–23). For Haggai, all three lie at the core of Israelite identity. But in Haggai’s day, although the Sinai covenant perdured, the temple lay in ruins and national independence under the rule of a Davidic scion remained merely a dream. However, a new era had dawned with the coming of Persian rule, and would soon be brought issues involved in life without the Jerusalemite temple in Middlemas 2005, 2007. Note especially the comments of Römer (2007: 51) who states, “The cleansing of the temple was indeed of not much use, since it was destroyed a few decades later. But the discovery of the book offered the possibility to understand this destruction and to worship Yahweh without any temple” (emphasis his). 44.  Space precludes a fuller discussion of this here. For the literary history of many of the works in question, see Albertz 2003; Albertz et al. 1996; Römer 2007. 45.  On the Priestly perspective on the temple, see Nihan 2007: 388–92; Fretheim 1968. For the ambivalent attitude to the monarchy in Deuteronomy–2 Kings, see Römer 2007: 139–49; McKenzie 1996. For the monarchy in Jeremiah, see Job 2006. On the Sinai covenant, see Olyan 2008. For a survey of the deuteronomic literature, including a discussion of these matters, see Knoppers and Greer 2013. 46. On debates regarding the reconstruction of the temple, see Bedford 1995, 2001; de Robert 1996; Kessler 2002b. See also the older but still useful survey in Ackroyd 1968.

248

John Kessler

to fullness through the anticipated “shaking of the heavens and earth” (Hag 2:6–9, 21–22). Haggai eagerly desired that the losses suffered in the course of the 6th century B.C.E. be reversed. For our prophet, covenant, temple, and royal hopes stood together. Temple reconstruction, the community’s responsibility (1:1–14; 2:1–5; 10–19), would begin the process of restoration. Yahweh’s intervention (2:6–9; 20–23) would complete it.

Conclusions The curse material with which the book of Haggai opens, while bearing a strong formal similarity to texts such as Deuteronomy 28, Leviticus 26, Amos 4, and Micah 6, nevertheless manifests a very different ideology and purpose from them. Rather than indicating that the covenant between Yahweh and Israel has been severely damaged or even ruptured, Haggai’s use of these “futility curse” formulations is intended to indicate the presence of a significant fault, hindering the Yehudite community’s relationship to Yahweh. For Haggai, the Sinai covenant is still operative. Indeed the book as a whole largely ignores the many disruptions caused by the traumatic events of the 6th century and that figure so prominently in numerous other prophetic texts. 47 The maledictions that are afflicting the community are an indication of difficulties within Israel’s covenantal relationship, not the absence of this sort of union. Furthermore, for Haggai, temple reconstruction is of great significance not because the Jerusalemite temple has come to be seen as a stipulation of the Sinai covenant, but because our prophet viewed the institutions of temple and monarchy as essential constituents of the nation’s identity. The book of Haggai is marked by a desire both to establish continuity between the tiny community in Yehud and the Israel of history and tradition and to promote hope for the future. The rehabilitation of the temple was thus an essential element in both these concerns. Hence, Haggai expresses Yahweh’s disapproval of the community’s neglect of its responsibilities in the most emphatic of terms. 47.  Notably, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Zechariah. On this, see Kessler 2002a; 2008.

Bibliography Abou-Assaf, A.; Bordeuil, P.; and Millard, A.A.R. 1982 La statue de Tell Fekherye et son inscription bilingue assyro-araméenne. Etudes assyriologiques 7. Paris: Editions recherches sur les civilisations. Ackroyd, P. R. 1968 Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century B.C. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster.

Curse, Covenant, and Temple in the Book of Haggai

249

1977 The Chronicler as Exegete. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 2: 2–32. Albertz, R. 2003 Israel in Exile: The History and Literature of the Sixth Century B.C.E., trans. D. Green. Studies in Biblical Literature 3. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Ambos, C. 2010 Building Rituals from the First Milennium BC: The Evidence from the Ritual Texts. Pp. 221–38 in From the Foundations to the Crenellations: Essays on Temple Building in the Ancient Near East and Hebrew Bible, ed. M. J. Boda and J. Novotny. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 366. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Amsler, S.; Lacoque, A.; and Vuilleumier, R., eds. 1988 Aggée-Zacharie 1–8, Zacharie 9–14, Malachi. Commentaire de l’Ancien Testament 11c. Genève: Labor et Fides. Bedford, P. R. 1995 Discerning the Time: Haggai, Zechariah and the “Delay” in the Rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple. Pp. 71–94 in The Pitcher Is Broken, Memorial Essays for G. W. Ahlström, ed. S. W. Holloway and L. K. Handy. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 190. Sheffield: JSOT Press. 2001 Temple Restoration in Early Achaemenid Judah. Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplement 63. Leiden: Brill. Ben Zvi, E. 1999 A Deuteronomistic Redaction in/among “The Twelve”: A Contribution from the Standpoint of the Books of Micah, Zephaniah and Obadiah. Pp. 232–61 in Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of PanDeuteronomism, ed. L. S. Shearing and S. L. McKenzie. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 268. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. 2000 Micah. Forms of the Old Testament Literature 21B. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Beuken, W. A. M. 1967 Haggai–Sacharja 1–8: Studien zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der frühnachexilischen Prophetie. Studia Semitica Neerlandica 10. Assen: van Gorcum. Blenkinsopp, J. 1999 Deuteronomic Contribution to the Narrative in Genesis–Numbers: A Test Case. Pp. 84–115 in Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism, ed. L. S. Schearing and S. L. McKenzie. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 268. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Boda, M. J. 2003 From Fasts to Feasts : The Literary Function of Zechariah 7–8. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 65: 390–407. 2003 Zechariah: Master Mason or Penitential Prophet? Pp. 49–69 in Yahwism after the Exile: Perspectives on Israelite Religion in the Persian Period, ed.

250

John Kessler

R. Albertz and B. Becking. Studies in Theology and Religion 5. Assen: van Gorcum. 2006 Renewal in Heart, Word, and Deed: Repentance in the Torah. Pp. 3–24 in Repentance in Christian Theology, ed. M. J. Boda and G. T. Smith. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press. 2007 Messengers of Hope in Haggai–Malachi. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 32: 113–31. 2010 A Severe Mercy: Sin and Its Remedy in the Old Testament. Siphrut 1. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Bosshard, E., and Kratz, R.G. 1990 Maleachi im Zwölfprophetenbuch. Biblische Notizen 52: 27–46. Cazelles, H. 1977 Alliance du Sinai, alliance de l’Horeb et renouvellement de l’alliance. Pp. 69–79 in Beiträge zur alttestamentlichen Theologie. Fest W. Zimmerli. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Cogan, M. 2001 1 Kings: A New Translation with Commentary. Anchor Bible 10. New York: Doubleday. Coggins, R. J. 1987 Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. Old Testament Guides. Sheffield: JSOT Press. de Robert, P. 1996 Pour ou contre le second temple. Pp. 179–82 in “Dort ziehen Schiffe dahin. . .”: Collected Communications to the XIVth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Paris, 1992, ed. M. Augustin and K.-D. Schunck. Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des Antiken Judentums 28. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Fitzmyer, J. A. 1967 The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefîre. Biblica et Orientalia 19. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Floyd, M. H. 1995 The Nature of the Narrative and the Evidence of Redaction in Haggai. Vetus Testamentum 45: 470–90. Fretheim, T. E. 1968 Priestly Document: Anti-temple? Vetus Testamentum 18: 313–29. Gerstenberger, E. 1996 Leviticus: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Louisville KY: Westminster John Knox. Greenfield, J. C., and Shaffer, A. 1983 Notes on the Akkadian-Aramaic Bilingual Statue from Tell Fekherye. Iraq 45: 109–16. 1985 Notes on the Curse Formulae of the Tell Fekherye Inscription. Revue Biblique 92: 46–59. Hartley, J. E. 1992 Leviticus. Word Biblical Commentary 4. Dallas, TX: Word. Hillers, D. R. 1964 Treaty Curses and the Old Testament Prophets. Biblica et Orientalia 16. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.

Curse, Covenant, and Temple in the Book of Haggai

251

1984 Micah. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress. Hurowitz, A. 1992 I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 115. Sheffield: JSOT Press. Job, J. B. 2006 Jeremiah’s Kings: A Study of the Monarchy in Jeremiah. Society for Old Testament Study Monographs. Aldershot: Ashgate. Kessler, J. 1992 The Second Year of Darius and the Prophet Haggai. Transeuphratène 5: 63–84. 1998 ʿṯ (le temps) en Ag 1 2–4: Conflit théologique ou “sagesse mondaine”? Vetus Testamentum 48: 555–59. 2002a The Book of Haggai: Prophecy and Society in Early Persian Yehud. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 91. Leiden: Brill. 2002b Building the Second Temple: Questions of Time, Text, and History in Haggai 1.1–15. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 27: 243–56. 2008 Tradition, Continuity and Covenant in the Book of Haggai: An Alternative Voice From Early Persian Yehud. Pp. 1–39 in Tradition in Transition: Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 in the Trajectory of Hebrew Theology, ed. M. J. Boda and M. H. Floyd. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 475. New York: T. & T. Clark. 2010 Temple Building in Haggai: Variations on a Theme. Pp. 357–80 in From the Foundations to the Crenellations: Essays on Temple Building in the Ancient Near East and Hebrew Bible, ed. M. J. Boda and J. Novotny. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 366. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. 2014 Haggai 2:5a: Translation, Significance, Purpose, and Origin. Transeuphratène 45 (Bible et Orient II: Mélanges André Lemaire): 69–89. Knohl, I. 1995 The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School. Minneapolis: Fortress. Knoppers, G. N. 1993 Two Nations under God: The Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and the Dual Monarchies, vol. 1: The Reign of Solomon and the Rise of Jeroboam. Harvard Semitic Monographs 52. Atlanta: Scholars Press. 2006. Yhwh’s Rejection of the House Built for His Name: On the Significance of Anti-Temple Rhetoric in the Deuteronomistic History. Pp 221–38 in Essays on Ancient Israel in Its Near Eastern Context: A Tribute to Nadav Naʾaman, ed. Y. Amit, E. Ben Zvi, I. Finkelstein, and O. Lipschits. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Knoppers, G. N., and Greer, J. S. 2013 Deuteronomistic History. In Oxford Bibliographies Online: Biblical Studies. Accessed May 8, 2013. http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view /document/obo-9780195393361/obo-9780195393361–0028.xml. Kohn, R. L. 2002 A New Heart and a New Soul: Ezekiel, the Exile, and the Torah. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 358. London: Sheffield Academic Press.

252

John Kessler

Leichty, E. 2011 The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, King of Assyria (680–669 BC). Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period 4. Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns. Lemaire, A., and Durand, J. M. 1984 Les inscriptions araméennes de Sefiré et l’Assyrie de Shamshi-ilu. Hautes études orientales 20. Genève: Librairie Droz. Levine, B. A. 1987 The Epilogue to the Holiness Code: A Priestly Statement on the Destiny of Israel. Pp. 9–34 in Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel, ed. J. Neusner, B. A. Levine, and E. S. Frerichs. Philadelphia: Fortress. Lipschits, O. 2005 The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem: Judah under Babylonian Rule. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Long, B. O. 1984 First Kings: With an Introduction to Historical Literature. Forms of the Old Testament Literature 9. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Lundbom, J. R. 1999 Jeremiah 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 21A. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Mason, R. 1982 The Prophets of the Restoration. Pp. 137–53 in Israel’s Prophetic Tradition: Essays in Honour of Peter R. Ackroyd, ed. R. Coggins, A. Philipps and M. Knibb. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mays, J. L. 1976 Micah: A Commentary. Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox. McKenzie, S. L. 1996 Cette royauté qui fait problème. Pp. 267–95 in Israël construit son histoire, ed. A. de Pury, T. Römer, and J.-D. Macchi. Le Monde de la Bible 34. Geneva: Labor et Fides. Meyers, C. L., and Meyers, E. M. 1987 Haggai, Zechariah 1–8. Anchor Bible 25B. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Middlemas, J. A. 2005 The Troubles of Templeless Judah. Oxford Theological Monographs. New York: Oxford University Press. 2007 The Templeless Age: An Introduction to the History, Literature, and Theology of the “Exile.” Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox. Millard, A. R., and Bordreuil, P. 1982 A Statue from Syria with Assyrian and Aramaic Inscriptions. Biblical Archaeologist 45/3: 135–41. Moore, R., and Kohn, R. L. 2007 Where Is God? Divine Presence in the Absence of the Temple. Pp. 133– 53 in Milk and Honey: Essays on Ancient Israel and the Bible in Appreciation of the Judaic Studies Program at the University of California, San Diego, ed. S. Malena and D. Miano. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Morrow, W. 2001 The Sefire Treaty Stipulations and the Mesopotamian Treaty Tradition. Pp. 83–99 in The World of the Aramaeans III: Studies in Language and

Curse, Covenant, and Temple in the Book of Haggai

253

Literature in Honour of Paul-Eugène Dion, ed. P. M. M. Daviau, J. W. Wevers, and M. Weigl. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Nelson, R. D. 2002 Deuteronomy: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. Nihan, C. 2007 From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch: A Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus. Forschungen von Alten Testamenten 2/25. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Novotny, J. 2010 Temple Building in Assyria: Evidence from Royal Inscriptions. Pp 109– 40 in From the Foundations to the Crenellations: Essays on Temple Building in the Ancient Near East and Hebrew Bible, ed. M. J. Boda and J. Novotny. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 366. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Nogalski, J. 1993 Literary Precursors to the Book of the Twelve. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 217. Berlin: de Gruyter. Olyan, S. M. 2008 The Status of Covenant during the Exile. Pp. 333–44 in Berührungspunkte: Studien zur Sozial- und Religionsgeschichte Israels und seiner Umwelt. Festschrift R. Albertz, ed. I. Kottsieper, R. Schmitt, and J. Wöhrle. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Petersen, D. L. 1985 Haggai and Zechariah 1–8. Old Testament Library. London: SCM. Pury, A. de.; Roemer, T. C.; and Macchi, J. D., eds. 1996 Israël construit son histoire: l’historiographie deutéronomiste à la lumière des recherches récentes. Le monde de la Bible 34. Genève: Labor et Fides. Römer, T. 2007 The So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Historical and Literary Introduction. London: T. & T. Clark. Römer, T. C., and Brettler, M. Z. 2000 Deuteronomy 34 and the Case for a Persian Hexateuch. Journal of Biblical Literature 119: 401–19. Sérandour, A. 1995 Réflexions à propos d’un livre récent sur Aggée-Zacharie 1–8. Transeuphratène 10: 75–84. 1996 Les récits bibliques de la construction du second temple: Leurs enjeux. Transeuphraténe 11: 9–32. Ska, J. L. 2006 Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch, trans. Pascale Dominique. Win­ ona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Stuart, D. 1987 Hosea–Jonah. Word Biblical Commentary 31. Waco, TX: Word. Talstra, E. 1993 Solomon’s Prayer: Synchrony and Diachrony in the Composition of 1 Kings 8:14–61, trans. G. Runia-Deenick. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 3. Kampen: Kok Pharos.

254

John Kessler

Tollington, J. A. 1993 Tradition and Innovation in Haggai and Zechariah 1–8. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 150. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Verhoef, P. A. 1987 The Books of Haggai and Malachi. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Wöhrle, J. 2006 The Formation and Intention of the Haggai–Zechariah Corpus. Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 6: article 10. Wolff, H. W. 1977 Joel and Amos: A Commentary on the Books of the Prophets Joel and Amos, ed. and trans. S. D. McBride. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress. 1988 Haggai: A Commentary, trans. M. Kohl. Minneapolis: Augsburg. 1990 Micah: A Commentary, trans. G. Stansell. Minneapolis: Augsburg. Wright, D. P. 1999 Holiness in Leviticus and Beyond: Differing Perspectives. Interpretation 53: 351–64.

Zechariah 11 and the Shepherd’s Broken Covenant Richard J. Bautch St. Edward’s University

Introduction In Zechariah 11, the prophet breaks a covenant that he has made with all the people (11:10). He breaks it only after he snaps in two a rod with which he had cared for the people, also known as the flock, and he snaps the rod only after he has lost patience with the flock’s previous shepherds, and they with him. What begins this chain of mismanagement? Yhwh tells the prophet to go and “shepherd the flock (marked for) slaughter” (11:4), and Yhwh adds that divine mercy has been withheld from this flock (11:6). Of Zech 11:4–17, Samuel Rolles Driver (1906: 23) famously remarked that it is the most enigmatic passage in the entire Old Testament, and a century later scholars are still citing Driver’s words. To be certain, recent studies have clarified aspects of Zechariah 11. Paul Redditt has demonstrated the importance of reading the shepherd references in Zech 11:4–17 in the larger context of Deutero-Zechariah. Redditt (1993: 680) notes that the term “shepherd” (root ‫ )רעה‬is introduced in 10:1–3a to unite chaps. 9 and 10. The next shepherd references appear in 11:4–17, as seen above. The final attestations of “shepherd” in 13:7–9 connect chaps. 12 and 13 with chap. 14. Shepherd is a thread in DeuteroZechariah, and Redditt argues that as such it holds the work together like glue (2012: 25). On the basis of his analysis, Redditt (2003: 321) concludes that a redactor is responsible for the so-called shepherd materials in Zechariah 10–13 (10:1–3a, 11:4–17, 12:6–7, 12:10–13:6, and 13:7–9). These “shepherd” verses reshape the optimistic expectations established in Zech 9:1–17 and developed in portions of Zechariah 10–14. Whereas the author anticipated a new and united realm with capable leadership, the redactor reversed these expectations and indicated that they could not come about with the leaders or “shepherds” of his day in Jerusalem. Building on Redditt’s insights, this study argues that within the thread of this redactor’s thought is found as well his commentary on the concept 255

256

Richard J. Bautch

of covenant. There is a positive reference to covenant early in DeuteroZechariah, at 9:11, which is followed by the disappointment of the broken covenant in 11:10. Later, however, the redactor indicates a renewed and more durable covenant for the future in 13:7–9. Through these last two references, I will show, the redactor is both rejecting covenant and restoring it. Raymond Person has studied an intertextual connection between Zechariah 11 and the book of Jeremiah. Reading for Deuteronomistic language and themes, Person (1993: 124) finds a surfeit of Jeremian influence in the short passage that begins Zechariah 11, an oracle of three verses about the fiery destruction of Lebanon cedars. The devastated cedars are a metaphor for the society’s once noble leaders now in ignominy. Person (1993: 126–28) finds another concentration of Jeremian influence in Zech 11:9–10, where the shepherd snaps the first of his two rods and breaks his covenant with all the people. Although the two passages, Zech 11:1–3 and 11:9–10, draw from different chapters in Jeremiah, the fact that Jeremiah’s Deuteronomistic theology influences both passages but informs little else in Zechariah 11 suggests a connection between the Lebanon cedars ablaze early in the chapter and the failed leadership of the Jerusalem based shepherd/prophet later. Exploring this connection between Jeremiah and Zechariah, this study argues for thematic resonance between the oracle that begins Zechariah 11 and the broken staffs and broken covenant later in the chapter. Moreover, beyond Jeremiah there are additional intertexts, Isaiah 10 and Nehemiah 10, that allow for greater insight into the redactor’s understanding of the Second Temple period when leadership failed and a covenant was broken. 1 Mark Boda has shed further light on the intertextual connection between Zechariah 11 and the oracles of Ezekiel. Boda (2003: 284–86) demonstrates how Zech 11:4–16 rearticulates material from Ezekiel (34:1–31 and 37:15–28) by taking the two sticks of Ezekiel 37 as the basis for two staffs wielded by the shepherd of Zechariah 11. Whereas Ezekiel joins his two sticks to symbolize new unity between Judah and Joseph/Ephraim, Zechariah snaps the second staff just as he did the first, thereby breaking the fraternity (‫ )האחוה‬between Judah and Israel (11:14). 1. Intertextuality is defined here as reading two or more texts together and in light of each other (Bautch 2007:25). Late prophetic texts such as Zechariah, moreover, often build on or negotiate the social power of precursor texts (Polaski 2001: 12). In this vein of analysis, texts such as Zechariah exemplify the phenomenon of intertextual negotiations; those writers responsible for Zechariah (and the late chapters of Isaiah) are creative in their construal of society because they draw on earlier texts but are not controlled by the texts’ authority or other discursive structures (Polaski 2001: 24).

Zechariah 11 and the Shepherd’s Broken Covenant

257

Boda observes that following Ezekiel’s fusing the two sticks, the narrative continues to elaborate how God saved the people and set David over them as king (2003: 287–88). The passage in Ezekiel 37 concludes with a renewal of the divine-human relationship as God makes a “covenant of peace” with the people (37:23): they will be God’s people and God will be their God. Inasmuch as the covenantal language of Ezek 37:23 is echoed in Zech 13:9, it raises a question: Does Zechariah adopt Ezekiel’s notion of a covenant of peace when referring to covenant obliquely in Zech 13:9 and explicitly in Zech 10:11? This study argues that Zechariah is engaging a covenant of a different type, the Mosaic or Sinaitic covenant with a certain innovation added. Through their exegesis, Redditt, Person, and Boda throw some light on the enigmatic Zech 11:4–17; attention now turns to the biblical text, beginning with the oracle in Zech 11:1–3 that precedes the allegory of the shepherd in 11:4–17.

The Oracle in Zechariah 11:1–3 In Lebanon, the great cedars go up in flames and fall far to the ground. In response, other trees howl, and elsewhere shepherds and lions bewail a similar loss of glorious habitat. This is the scene in Zech 11:1–3. The account of natural destruction serves as a polemic against a certain group or class of people. Some commentators refer to the oracle as a “taunt song” (Redditt 2013: 17). In biblical literature, the Lebanon cedar can symbolize a nation such as Assyria (Ezek 31:3, 16–17) or Judah’s king (Ezek 17:3). In Zech 11:1, the Lebanon cedars suggest Jerusalemite leaders during the first part of the Second Temple period. These individuals are likely indicated as well in 11:3, by the reference to “shepherds” bereft of their glory. The term shepherds need not speak of royalty or kings per se. Redditt suggests that the word shepherds approximates influential people from the leading families (2003: 385), and elsewhere he says that they are lay and priestly leaders, perhaps even descendants of David (1993: 685). Most recently, Redditt has stressed the priestly character of the historical figures represented by the shepherds to suggest that they were temple functionaries in “collusion with the actual overlords, the Persians” (2012: 84). The oracle may be explored in terms of significant images and vocabulary. In Zechariah 11, ‫ תאכל‬serves as a key note and signals all-consuming devastation. Zech 11:1 reports that fire consumes (‫ )תאכל‬Lebanon’s cedars. ‫ תאכל‬is as well a catchword that recurs in the subsequent allegory of the shepherd (Zech 11:4–17); Zech 11:9 describes a state of anarchy in which a neighbor eats her neighbor’s flesh (11:9b).

258

Richard J. Bautch

The majestic ones in 11:2 are likely Lebanon’s majestic cedars, now devastated. In fact, three strong and valuable types of trees (cedar, juniper or cypress, and oak) representing proud rulers are subject to devastation. The Hebrew word translated “majestic ones” (‫ )אדרים‬in 11:2 is from the same root as the word “glory” (‫ )אדרתם‬in 11:3. Verse 3 refers to the lost glory of the shepherds; the devastation will cause shepherds and the lions in the jungle of the Jordan to howl. The root ‫ אדר‬is conspicuous in Zech 11:2, 3, and it accrues additional meaning through intertextuality with the books of Nehemiah and Isaiah. In Nehemiah 10, another postexilic text, the Hebrew root denoting majesty or glory (‫ )אדר‬again indicates a class of leaders or distinguished people in postexilic Judea. In Neh 10:30, the ‫ אחיהם אדריהם‬are their “noble kinsmen” who swear an oath to follow torah, thereby sealing an ‫אמנה‬, a (non-bĕrît) covenant kept within the postexilic community. The covenant is a bi-lateral agreement that mandates the performance of certain commands or ‫( מצות‬Neh 10:30, 33), which pertain to intermarriage or to the Sabbath. These include a schedule for bringing wood to the temple on certain days. Groups involved in this covenant, however, also understand themselves more globally. How? As Neh 10:30 makes clear, the members of these groups bind themselves together in a covenant in order to follow all the laws of Moses. The covenant of Nehemiah 10, then, is an example of a Mosaic covenant with an innovation: The covenant interrelates universal and particular senses of the law. The universal sense or Mosaic sense is articulated in Neh 10:30, 33, and the particular sense is the application of specific mandates, such as bringing wood to the temple, to certain groups on certain days. Thus, the covenant is a mixture of different types of elements (Bautch 2009: 109–14). The question then becomes, is there comparability between the mixed covenant of Nehemiah 10 and the covenant established by the leaders or ‫ אדרים‬of Zechariah 11? The root (‫ )אדר‬is also attested in Isa 10: 33–34 (JPSV): Behold, the Lord, Yhwh of hosts, shall lop the boughs with terror; and the high ones of stature shall be hewn down (‫)גדועים‬, and the lofty shall be laid low. And He shall cut down the thickets of the forest with iron, and Lebanon in its splendor (‫ )באדיר‬shall fall.

In Isaiah’s oracle, Lebanon loses its noble glory (‫ )באדיר‬at the hands of Yhwh, who lops off tall boughs (reminiscent of Lebanon’s cedars) so they are left hewn down (‫)גדועים‬. Significantly, the Hebrew verb in play here, translated “hewn down” (‫)גדועים‬, recurs in Zech 11:10, where the shepherd snaps in two his first rod, that called ‫ נעם‬or “pleasantness.” With the

Zechariah 11 and the Shepherd’s Broken Covenant

259

same verb, he later in 11:14 snaps in two a second staff called ‫ חבלים‬or “pledge.” As an intertext, Isa 10:33–34 confirms and clarifies thematic linkage between the oracle in Zech 11:1–3 and the allegory in Zech 11:4–17. In sum, there is a clear connection between the oracle of the felled cedars in Zech 11:1–3 and the breaking of the shepherd’s first rod and his covenant (with all the peoples) in Zech 11:10. The connection is created by the words ‫ תאכל‬and ‫תאכלנה‬, and it is extended via intertexts such as Neh 10:30–33 and especially Isa 10:33–34. Both Deutero-Zechariah and Isaiah report the destruction of Lebanon’s majestic cedars, and both describe the loss as the snapping of a vertical shaft, either a great cedar in Isaiah’s oracle or a shepherd’s staff in the words of Deutero-Zechariah. By alluding to Isaiah’s oracle, the writer aligns Lebanon’s burned and broken cedars with the snapped rod and broken covenant. He thus focuses attention on failed leadership and creates the picture of a community in an abyss. The short oracle encapsulates the travail of the shepherd and those associated with him before the same plot is elaborated in the allegory of Zech 11:4–17.

The Allegory of Zechariah 11:4–17 The initial verses of the allegory, Zech 11:4–6, reveal more about the community leaders, or shepherds. The prophet himself is a shepherd by virtue of his commissioning in 11:4; his God tells him to “shepherd” a flock that has not been well tended either by its owners, or by the sellers who bring the sheep to market, or by other, merciless shepherds. Zech 11:7–8 suggests conflict between the prophet now functioning as a shepherd and the flock’s previous overseers. In 11:7, the prophet says that he shepherded the flock “on behalf of the sheep merchants,” and here the noun ‫ כנעניי הצאן‬should be translated “merchants” because this rarely attested word clearly indicates merchants elsewhere in Deutero-Zechariah (14:21). These merchants have been associated with officials that the Persians appointed to oversee the province, including the Jewish governors and other Yehudites (Redditt 2012:84). The following verse, 11:8, reports that the prophet has supplanted the shepherds previously over the flock. The verb is ‫ואכחד‬, sometimes translated “annihilated,” but another translation is that the prophet/shepherd has simply bested and ousted the erstwhile shepherds. There is no reason to conclude that they are not still on the scene. In fact, it is quite possible that these are the individuals with whom the shepherd loses patience in the final clause of 11:8. That is, the

260

Richard J. Bautch

conflict is primarily between the prophet and his adversaries, not the flock. Zech 11:4–8 contains various evidence of internal conflicts among leaders and friction between their respective social groups. In the words of Ben Ollenberger (1996: 822), “In this narrative, the larger concerns and hopes regarding Judah’s autonomy and security . . . stand alongside oblique references to internal conflicts.” Amid this strife, who is maintaining a semblance of order? It is the prophet/shepherd, with the help of two staffs or ‫מקלות‬, one called ‫ נעם‬and the other called ‫( חבלים‬11:7). In 11:7 the first staff is designated from the root ‫נעם‬, which is often rendered “beauty,” although that translation does not fit well here. I suggest that ‫ נעם‬be associated with wisdom and translated “pleasantness” on the following grounds. The root ‫ נעם‬is attested 16 times in the Hebrew Bible, and there is no obvious connection between any of these verses and Zech 11:7. The largest cluster of verses, however, is in Proverbs, where ‫ נעם‬is associated with wisdom. 2 In all but one of these five references to wisdom in Proverbs (Prov 2:10, 3:17, 9:17 15:26), ‫ נעם‬is parallel to another expression such as ‫“( מתק‬sweetness”) or ‫“( שלום‬peace”). This type of parallelism occurs in Zech 11:7, where ‫ נעם‬is paired with ‫חבלים‬. It would be difficult to prove on these grounds alone that Proverbs influenced Deutero-Zechariah, but Deutero-Zechariah may be drawing on proverbial material in which ‫ נעם‬is pleasantness, one of the many benefits of wisdom. In Proverbs, the person who lives in accord with wisdom receives all the goods a wisely constructed world can offer (Clifford 1999: 54). This would be a true alternative to the anarchic world of Zechariah 11. Moreover, Prov 3:17, which describes wisdom as peaceful and pleasant (‫)נעם‬, is followed by a remarkable comparison between wisdom and the tree of life (Prov 3:18, see Gen 2:9). The world of Proverbs and its life-giving flora again contrasts sharply with Zechariah 11, where great forests are denuded and the shepherd’s staffs are broken. 3 The shepherd’s first staff, ‫נעם‬, marks the failed vision of a pleasant world that never comes to pass in Zechariah 11. 2.  Redditt similarly seeks to understand ‫ נעם‬by way of lyrical material in the Writings when he makes reference to Psa 90:17 (2012: 84). 3.  One finds the combination of wisdom, pleasantness, and lovely trees functioning across a range of texts from the 3rd century B.C.E., and Zechariah 11 evokes this topos through the staffs’ names. In 1 En. 32, the seer Enoch describes the paradise of righteousness in terms of trees that are large, beautiful, glorious, and magnificent (32:3). Enoch’s paradise features one tree of great height, and of this tree Enoch remarks, “How beautiful is the tree and how pleasing in appearance” (1 En. 32:5; Nickels­burg 2004: 48). The Aramaic of this verse is not extant to allow a comparison with ‫ נעם‬in Zech 11:7, but the parallelism between “beautiful” and “pleasing” in 1 En.

Zechariah 11 and the Shepherd’s Broken Covenant

261

As for the second staff called ‫חבלים‬, in Zech 11:14 this staff is associated with the tribal ties between Judah and Israel. Thus, “pledge” may be an apt translation, inasmuch as the breaking of this staff undoes a brotherhood or kinship connection, indicated by the hapax ‫אחוה‬. Taken together, the two staffs frame the vision of a pleasant realm which enjoys unity among its constituents, who are understood to be kin. The tone changes in 11:8–9. The shepherd states that he will not shepherd “you,” an ambiguous objective pronoun in masculine plural. The logical referent would be the masculine plural noun in 11:8, the three shepherds. After decommissioning the shepherds and growing sick of them, the prophet/shepherd in 11:9 further disassociates himself from them and issues three curses: let the dying die, let the defeated be defeated, and let each of the remnant eat the flesh of her neighbor. Person (1993: 126) has shown the linguistic parallels between the third curse, about eating a neighbor’s flesh, and Jer 19:9, where the same expression appears. Through an intertext, Deutero-Zechariah invokes the fractious milieu in which Jeremiah prophesied until Pashur the priest assaulted the prophet and put him in stocks (Jer 20:1–2). The redactor, however, is not focusing solely on Jeremiah. Rather, he leverages Jeremiah to amplify the connection between the words ‫ תאכל‬in Zech 11:1 and ‫ תאכלנה‬in 11:9. In the oracle, the destruction of the cedars now stands most clearly as a poetic anticipation of the shepherd’s career. In 11:10, the shepherd snaps the rod called pleasantness, an echo of the Lebanon cedars snapping in two, and he breaks “my covenant which I made with all the people.” The language of covenant in 11:10b is distinctive but not unique: ‫להפיר את־בריתי אשר כרתי את־כל־העמים‬

“To break the covenant that I made with” is a distinct expression found three times in the Hebrew Bible. In addition to Zech 11:10, there are two deuteronomic references in Deut 31:16 and Jer 11:10. Deut 31:16 falls within the unit Deut 31:14–18, where God addresses Moses shortly before the prophet’s death. God tells him that after he dies, the people will prostitute themselves to foreign gods “and forsake me and break the covenant that I made with them.” In the context of Deutero-Zechariah, the prophet could be identifying with Moses, whose best attempt to lead the 32:5 matches that in Zech 11:7 and Prov 3:17. Also relevant is Sir 24:12–22, involving wisdom, trees, and torah. Wisdom first compares herself to a Lebanon cedar and then to an array of great trees (24:13–14). After further description of the trees, Sir 24:22 likens the tree of wisdom to torah.

262

Richard J. Bautch

people did not keep them from falling into lawlessness. In this sense, the writer is aligning the covenant of Zech 11:10 with the Mosaic or Sinaitic covenant. The bĕrît broken in Zech 11:10 is typologically the same as that broken in Deut 31:16. The phrase “to break the covenant that I made with” also appears in Jer 11:10, the center of a distinct literary unit, the covenant sermon in Jer 11:1–17. In this deuteronomic oracle from the seventh century, Jeremiah is portrayed as preaching the covenant. But the peoples of Israel and Judah become rebellious and idolatrous. In Jer 11:10, they “break the covenant that I made with their forefathers,” and Yhwh pronounces judgment against them. Jeremiah is then told not to pray for the rebellious people of Israel and Judah (11:14), thereby severing his relationship with them, just as the shepherd in Zechariah 11 becomes alienated from all of the people. The reason Jeremiah’s intercession would be fruitless is given in Jer 11:16–17. In these crucial verses, Israel and Judah are likened to a beautiful olive tree that Yhwh planted to bear fruit. But because Israel and Judah made offerings to Baal they provoked the anger of Yhwh (‫)להכעסני‬, who in response set fire to the olive tree. The fire blazed until with a shattering noise the tree’s branches were all broken, and the tree was destroyed. In this deuteronomic oracle, there is a fundamental connection between “breaking the covenant that I made with” the forefathers of Israel and Judah and the fiery destruction of an otherwise healthy tree. The writer of Deutero-Zechariah depicts the same sort of religio-social dissolution: Israel and Judah, who are mentioned explicitly in Zech 11:14, are typified by their worthless leaders who were once tall and promising like Lebanon’s cedars or the olive tree of Jeremiah but are now the objects of destruction. The lexical correlation between Deutero-Zechariah’s oracle (11:1–3) and the allegory (11:4–17) on the crucial issues of leadership and covenant is amplified by allusions to Jeremiah. The sum total of the evidence has led Eibert Tigchelaar (1996: 112; 2003: 266) to suggest that an editor influenced by Jeremiah has supplied the materials in Zech 11:1–3, 11:4– 17, and as well Zech 10:1–2. That is, one person has blended together imagery from Jeremiah, from a fiery oracle inserted into the Zechariah collection (11:1–3), and from the author’s own reckoning of postexilic Yehud, where internecine fighting has left the community with no covenant and no true leaders (11:4–17). These connections between Jeremiah and Deutero-Zechariah indicate like-mindedness on the issues of leadership and covenant. The nature of the covenant involved is evidently Mosaic or Sinaitic, although by focusing on different data in Zech 11:4–17 scholars have variously suggested that it is a covenant of peace or an extension of the Noa-

Zechariah 11 and the Shepherd’s Broken Covenant

263

hic covenant. Robert Foster (2007: 747) offers a review of the different positions. It bears repeating, however, that the intertextual linkage among Zech 11:10, Deut 31:16, and Jer 11:10–17 indicates that the shepherd’s covenant is an expression of the Mosaic or Sinaitic covenant, the covenant of law and of blessing. In its absence, the community is accursed. While the covenant in Zech 11:10 is based on the Mosaic/Sinaitic covenant, it is no less a sign of the relationship between this particular shepherd and his flock, a certain group of Judeans. In the words of Redditt (2012:85), “Within the passage itself, the most obvious covenant is the one implied in v. 7 when the narrator agreed to shepherd the flock.” In fact, the pact may have contained some particular understandings between the shepherd and the group or groups he sought to lead as well as between him and other leaders in the community. The community-specific ‫מצות‬ subsist within the Mosaic covenant. In the case of Zechariah 11, some unstated issue may be regulated covenantally to enhance the quality of life for those under the shepherd’s authority. Of course, one would like to know more, such as what exactly the shepherd’s covenant stipulated, and of this more will be said below. The fact that he refers to it as “my covenant” (‫ )בריתי‬that “I created” (‫ )כרתי‬indicates that the agreement bears his imprint, making the covenant particular to this shepherd and in all likelihood to the issues that he asked the community to confront. At this point, it is possible to state with more precision what is meant by a mixed covenant in the shepherd’s allegory of Zech 11:4–17. It is mixed in that the pact has two dimensions, the first of which expresses the Israelite covenant par excellence, the Mosaic or Sinaitic covenant. The Sinaitic legal tradition retained its value through the exile and is one dimension of the mixed covenant. The other dimension is the particular, the key ‫מצות‬ that galvanize a given community. Although this dimension is unstated in Zech 11:10, there are sufficient examples from other Persian-period texts to establish the plausibility of particular stipulations informing the shepherd’s covenant. Recall the mixed covenant of Nehemiah 10 as it contained the mundane matter of a common schedule for bringing wood to the temple. Wood for sacrifice represents the type of particular issue that could be taken up in a postexilic covenant that is Mosaic or Sinaitic in its larger design. In Nehemiah 5, a debate about debt slavery is fueled by sharp difference of opinion among Judeans as to how they should treat their non-Judean “brothers” from the land. Some commentators have described these “brothers from the land” as Israelites. Through a covenant, the figure of Nehemiah establishes a common practice for dealing with “brothers” who fall into financial arrears (Neh 5: 11–13). It is an ad hoc covenant with a sure bottom line

264

Richard J. Bautch

prohibiting debt slavery in this situation. Tigchelaar (1996: 113) likens the situation depicted in Nehemiah 5 to that found in the shepherd’s allegory of Zech 11:4–17. Tigchelaar even suggests that the flock entrusted to Zechariah’s shepherd are the “Israelites” or mixed-bloods looked down on in Nehemiah 5 and vulnerable to debt slavery except for the protections of a covenant forged by Nehemiah. This suggestion may overreach the evidence available in Zech 11:4–17 and is in any case difficult to corroborate. Nevertheless, Tigchelaar’s view of the matter is intriguing in that it points to particular social issues that may have subsisted in the covenant of Zech 11:10. The sheep of the flock in Zechariah were not necessarily subject to debt slavery, but whatever made their lives wretched was likely addressed in the covenant by which they lived, for a time, until conditions worsened and the shepherd took it upon himself to annul the pact. Alongside the agreements in Nehemiah 5 and 10, another example of the mixed covenant occurs in Haggai. As John Kessler (2008: 26) has shown, on the one hand, “Haggai views the Sinai covenant as a foundational constitutive element of the community’s relationship with Yahweh” (1:2–11). On the other hand, the prophet preaches first and foremost rebuilding the temple, a directive that is “markedly absent from other covenant stipulations preserved in the Hebrew Bible” (2008: 17). In Kessler’s words (2008: 27), “Haggai blurs the broader details of the tradition complex and picks up a single element within the [covenant] tradition and elevates it to central importance.” 4 Might not the prophet/shepherd of Zechariah 11 be doing something similar? In his analysis of Haggai and covenant, Kessler (2008: 35) distinguishes between plot content and ideological purpose. Haggai’s plot content is reconstruction of the temple, whereas the prophet’s ideological purpose is “a rich theology of divine-human interaction.” In a word, covenant is Haggai’s ideological purpose, with rebuilding the temple his specific directive. Haggai’s approach to covenant exhibits the type of mixed covenant seen in Nehemiah and Deutero-Zechariah. In Deutero-Zechariah, there was a mutual understanding that the shepherd had established between himself and the flock. This understanding may have included unspecified content that facilitated the shepherd’s leadership and constituted the particular dimension of the covenant, which was Mosaic in its broader outlines. The text does not disclose what the shepherd’s covenant stipulated, whereas in Haggai and Nehemiah the cov4.  In his contribution to this volume, Kessler revisits the imperative to rebuild the temple in Haggai. His analysis of this single element within the tradition of the Mosaic covenant is consistent with his earlier work, although now he describes the delay in rebuilding the temple as a violation in covenant, as opposed to a violation of covenant.

Zechariah 11 and the Shepherd’s Broken Covenant

265

enant’s specific content is enumerated. In Deutero-Zechariah, however, the shepherd’s two staffs with their respective monikers are something of a clue in this matter. The first staff is called ‫ נעם‬or “pleasantness,” and the second staff is called ‫ חבלים‬or “pledge.” Were the people pledged to act with pleasantness, or graciousness, to one another? Was there a common oath of civility so that the shepherd’s covenant community might resemble the idealized world of Proverbs, where wisdom is infused in all walks of life (see n. 3)? Was the fabric of this community to be kinship, actual or fictive, expressed via the second staff called ‫ חבלים‬or “pledge?” Moreover, was this Jerusalem of supreme solidarity enveloped in Mosaic law and other religious traditions traced back to Sinai? This is a complex vision that ultimately failed, as the shepherd did not lead the community forward. The vision nonetheless reveals something significant about covenant in Zechariah 11 where, as in Nehemiah and Haggai, we find the Mosaic or Sinaitic covenant localized and fit to the fabric of people’s lives. To continue in Deutero-Zechariah, who in 11:10 are the “all the peoples” (‫ )את־כל־העמים‬with whom the shepherd has made, and now broken, this covenant? The Hebrew noun is plural, and some scholars take it to refer to the Gentile nations surrounding the Judeans. It is said that Yhwh made a covenant with these nations to prevent them from attacking Israel, and that now this protection is ended. The difficulty with this view is that there is no evidence of the existence of any such regional covenant. Studying the phrase “To break the covenant that I made with” led to Jer 11:1–17, where the people of God are referred to as Israel and Judah, the northern and southern kingdoms and by extension the full extent of the twelve tribes. Recall that in Ezek 37:19 the two sticks that are joined as one are the tribes of Judah and Ephraim. Thus it is no coincidence that Israel and Judah are the two entities that Deutero-Zechariah refers to when interpreting Jeremiah’s oracle. The prophet reports: “I snapped in two my second staff, called pledge, in order to break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel.” Like Jeremiah, the prophet likely understood his covenant partners to be Israel and Judah, and perhaps the twelve tribes by extension. In this case, the referent of ‫ את־כל־העמים‬in Zech 11:10 is the tribes of Israel. As the tribes were no longer functioning as they did in early Israel, one must look for figurative ways to understand this reference in light of how kinship and fictive kinship operated during and after the exile. 5 5. Benjaminite-Judean tension arose after the deportation to Babylon in 587 B.C.E. when those remaining in the land based themselves at Bethel, where patriarchal traditions flourished. While the Jacob traditions were well established in Bethel, those of Abraham may have been much more recent. The polemics between Bethel and

266

Richard J. Bautch

It remains only to interpret the puzzling Zech 11:13: Then Yhwh said to me, send to the smelter this princely sum at which they valued me, and I took (the) thirty shekels and I sent the sum to the smelter (in) the temple.

A key term is ‫אל־היוצר‬, which Rex Mason understands to be a smelter, a person forging metals by fire in a workshop within the temple (Mason 2003: 113). This reading finds support in 1 Kgs 7:15 and Isa 44:9–10. With Mason, I read the MT over against a Syriac version that translated the yod as an ʾalep to render the word “treasury.” The prophet/shepherd brings his princely wages to the temple smith so that they might be liquidated. But why should money, in this case, the shepherd’s wages, be liquidated? Typically, commentators read this verse as ironic. Yhwh required of the people not payment to a third party, the shepherd, but obedience to the laws and the covenant. The people responded to the covenant inappropriately, however, and as a result their paying the shepherd is ironic. But within the allegory, is this interpretation plausible? The parties at fault are the leaders, not the people as a whole. The allegory polemicizes against the owners, merchants and shepherds, including the prophet/shepherd who speaks in first person. In fact, the expression about wages subtly indicts the leaders here as well, by way of the Hebrew word ‫אדר‬, translated “princely,” as in the NJB. The Hebrew root ‫ אדר‬was prominent in the oracle, Zech 1:1–3, where “majestic ones” (‫ )אדרים‬in 11:2 is echoed by the cognate word “glory” (‫ )אדרתם‬in 11:3. Verse 3 refers to the lost glory of the shepherds; the devastation of the great trees will cause shepherds and the lions in the jungle of the Jordan to howl. Here in 11:13, something very similar takes place. The princely wage of the leaders, their worldly glory, is literally destroyed by fire, now at the hand of the smelter in the Jerusalem temple. Glory gone up in flames is the last word on the leaders of this day. They are all failed shepherds, the prophet first and foremost. In the allegory’s final verses, 11:15–17, the prophet is called anew, but this time to be a shepherd of foolishness (‫רעה אולי‬, 11:15). So ends the allegory of the prophet/shepherd in Zechariah 11. A subsequent passage, Zech 13:7–9, may have once followed the allegory directly, with 12:1–14 and 13:1–6 later interpolations (Stade 1881: Babylon became those of Bethel and Jerusalem on the return from exile, but because a detailed record of this exchange is not available, it is difficult to pinpoint the origins of the tension between northern areas such as Bethel and Jerusalem. One may plaus­ ibly correlate Judah and Benjamin to the two major social groups in postexilic Yehud, the golah returnees and the group that remained behind, although the specifics of this identification remain opaque.

Zechariah 11 and the Shepherd’s Broken Covenant

267

29). In this case, there would be an extension of the temple imagery about a smelter in Zech 11:13 to Zech 13:9, a reference to the people being refined as silver and tried as gold. Zech 13:9 reads: And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried; they shall call on my name, and I will answer them; I will say: “It is my people,” and they shall say: “Yhwh is my God.” (Zech 13:9 JPSV)

The images of the smelter in Zech 11:13 and of the refined silver and gold in 13:9 are congruous. The possibility that 13:9 served as an inclusio to Zech 11:4–17 increases in light of the final words of 13:9: “I will say, ‘It is my people,’ and they shall say: ‘Yhwh is my God.’” The covenantal language can be read as a response of sorts to the broken covenant of Zech 11:11. God will institute and ensure the right relationship with the people that the prophet and his community could not sustain. Although their covenant was broken and anarchy ensued, God restores the covenant with God’s people.

Summary and Conclusion The value of reading Zechariah 11 in the larger context of chaps. 9–13 is now apparent; with regard to covenant, there is a thread through these five chapters. A positive reference early in Deutero-Zechariah, at 9:11, is followed by the disappointment of the broken covenant in 11:10, with a renewed and more durable covenant for the future indicated in 13:7–9. If the redactor is responsible for this thread of rather disparate covenant material, what was he attempting to say about covenant and about his society? Is the redactor rejecting covenant or restoring it? Quite likely, it is both. Postexilic biblical literature offers the theologically complex perspective of a covenant’s readoption alongside the implicit termination of an earlier covenant. See, for example, two of the sources that influenced DeuteroZechariah, Jeremiah (30:22; 31:31, 33; 32:38) and Ezekiel (36:28). Saul Olyan has characterized this perspective as an “anti-rejectionist” position, and he lays emphasis on God’s readopting the people, over and against the termination of an earlier covenant (Olyan 2008: 342–43). “Anti-­ rejectionist” aptly describes the redactor of Deutero-Zechariah. This biblical writer highlights the rejection of covenant as dramatized by the broken ‫ ברית‬in Zech 11:10 while casting the restoration of the covenant as a possibility in the future. Zech 13:9 points toward that future: “I will say: ‘It is my people’, and they shall say: ‘Yhwh is my God.’”

268

Richard J. Bautch

Bibliography Bautch, R. J. 2007 Intertextuality in the Persian Period. Pp. 25–35 in Approaching Yehud: New Approaches to the Study of the Persian Period, ed. J. L. Berquist. Semeia Studies 50. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. 2009 Glory and Power, Ritual and Relationship: The Sinai Covenant in the Postexilic Period. Library of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 471. New York: T. & T. Clark. Boda, M. J. 2003 Reading between the Lines: Zechariah 11:4–16 in Its Literary Contexts. Pp. 277–91 in Bringing out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion in Zech­ ariah 9–14, ed. M. J. Boda and M. H. Floyd. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 370. London: Sheffield. Clifford, R. J. 1999 Proverbs. Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. Driver, S. R. 1906 The Minor Prophets. Century Bible. Edinburgh: Jack. Foster, R. L. 2007 Shepherds, Sticks and Social Destabilization: A Fresh Look at Zechariah 11:4–17. Journal of Biblical Literature 126: 735–53. Kessler, J. 2008 Tradition, Continuity and Covenant in the Book of Haggai. Pp. 1–39 in Tradition in Transition: Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 in the Trajectory of Hebrew Theology, ed. M. J. Boda and M. H. Floyd. Library of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 475. New York: T. & T. Clark. Mason, R. 2003 Zechariah 11:4–17. Pp. 93–116 in Bringing out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion in Zechariah 9–14, ed. M. J. Boda and M. H. Floyd. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 370. London: Sheffield. Nickelsburg, G. E., and VanderKam, J. C. 2004 1 Enoch: A New Translation. Minneapolis: Fortress. Ollenberger, B. C. 1996 Second Zechariah. The New Interpreter’s Bible Commentary. Vol. 7. Nashville: Abingdon. Olyan, S. M. 2008 The Status of Covenant during the Exile. Pp. 333–44 in Berührungspunkte: Studien zur Sozial- und Religionsgeschichte Israels und seiner Umwelt. Festschrift für Rainer Albertz zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, ed. I. Kottsieper, R. Schmitt, and J. Wöhrle. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 350. Munster: Ugarit Verlag. Person, R. F. 1993 Second Zechariah and the Deuteronomic School. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 167. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Polaski, D. C. 2001 Authorizing an End: The Isaiah Apocalypse and Intertextuality. Biblical Interpretation Series 50. Leiden: Brill.

Zechariah 11 and the Shepherd’s Broken Covenant

269

Redditt, P. L. 1993 The Two Shepherds in Zechariah 11:4–17. Catholic Biblical Quarterly. 55: 676–86. 2003 Zechariah 9–14: The Capstone of the Book of the Twelve. Pp. 305–23 in Bringing out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion in Zechariah 9–14, ed. M. J. Boda and M. H. Floyd. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 370. London: Sheffield. 2012 Zechariah 9–14. International Exegetical Commentary on the Old Testament. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Stade, B. 1881 “Deuterozacharja: Eine kritische Studie.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 1: 1–96; 2:151–72, 275–309. Tigchelaar, E. J. C. 1996 Prophets of Old and the Day of the End: Zechariah, the Book of the Watchers and Apocalyptic. Oudtestamentische Studiën 35. Leiden: Brill. 2003 Some Observations on the Relationship between Zechariah 9–11 and Jeremiah. Pp. 260–70 in Bringing out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion in Zechariah 9–14, ed. M. J. Boda and M. H. Floyd. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 370. London: Sheffield.

The Reproach of the Priests (Malachi 1:6–2:9) within Malachi’s Conception of Covenant Elie Assis Bar Ilan University

Introduction The second oracle in the book of Malachi offers reproach to the priests. Many scholars agree that the book’s main interest is to reassure the people of Yehud in the difficult days of the Postexilic Period that God is still with them, and that the theme of the covenant is central to the book’s message. 1 The aim of this essay is to examine how the reproach to the priests in Mal 1:6–2:9 fits into this overall message. I intend to examine this question by analyzing the prophet’s critiques in this pericope, particularly the relationships among them. Focusing on the critiques will reveal more clearly the author’s understanding of how the people perceived their reality, which in turn will enable us to grasp better the nature of the prophet’s intentions. The second oracle, which extends from 1:6–2:9, is significantly longer than the other oracles of the book. It is divided into two parts, the first of which, vv. 1:6–14, deals with the sin of offering blemished sacrifices on the altar, 2 and the second, 2:1–9, comprises a rebuke of the priests for their negligence in their role as teachers of the people. 3 In this essay, I will examine the relationship between these two subjects. The two parts of the oracle may be viewed as two separate and distinct oracles. If, however, the two parts comprise one unified oracle, the relationship between the two 1.  On the covenantal concept in Malachi, see Baldwin 1972: 216–17; McKenzie and Wallace 1983: 549–63; Verhoef 1987: 180–81; Mason 1990: 239. 2.  Lev 22:19–24; Deut 15:21. See Milgrom 2000: 1875–80. Weyde (2000: 118– 22) has shown how Malachi alludes to Lev 22:17–25. 3.  I follow the opinion that this whole section addresses the priests, and that the references in the book to Levi are to the priests as sons of Levi. For this view, see Wellhausen 1897: 206; Nowack 1903: 434; O’Brien 1990: 27–48; Schaper 2004: 177–87. Mason and Utzschneider, however, distinguish between the Levites, who are praised, and the priests, who are attacked; see Mason 1977: 148; 1990: 244; Utzschneider, 1989: 45–47. Utzschneider (1989: 68, 81–82) believes that the Levites are attacked as well. Reynolds (1993: 146–47) is of the opinion that the text of Malachi reflects a rivalry between Levites and Aaronids and that the author of the book was in fact a Levite.

271

272

Elie Assis

parts should be determined. To understand the prophet’s criticism, it is necessary to address the people’s point of view; in particular, their motivation for bringing blemished sacrifices to the altar should be addressed. Each of the six oracles in the book of Malachi contains an argument, five between the people and the prophet, and one between the priests and the prophet. 4 In the second oracle, the priests repudiate the reproach, asking, “Why have we despised your name?” (1:6). It is difficult to understand what the priests’ disclaimer actually means. It is unlikely that they claimed they brought good sacrifices; it is also unlikely that there was a dispute over what was considered a fit sacrifice. What, then, was the nature of the dispute between the prophet and the priests? 5

The Relationship between 1:6–14 and 2:1–9 A connection between the beginning and the end of the oracle forms an inclusio. The oracle opens with the prophet’s claim that the priests do not respect or fear God, and that they even show contempt for the Lord: “A son honors his father . . . if then I be a father, where is My honor? . . . O priests, who despise My name” (1:6). The closing of the oracle relates to the punishment, debasement, and mortification of the priests (Floyd 2000: 594): “and so I make you despised and abased before all the people” (2:9). The retributive principle is thus expressed both in the opening and the closing of the oracle. 6 The priests are addressed directly at the beginning of each section: “Says the Lord of hosts unto you, O priests” (1:6) and “And now, O priests, this commandment is for you” (2:1). Each of these parts is delineated by an inclusio. The first part opens: “who despise My name. You say, ‘How have we despised Your name?” and it ends: “for I am a great King . . . and My name is feared among the nations.” The ending of the second part reverses its opening, thereby creating another inclusio. The claim that the priests do not honor the Lord (“If you will not listen, and if you will not lay it to heart, to give glory unto My name,” 2:2) appears at the beginning of the 4.  Pfeiffer 1959: 546–68. He identified the six oracles as prophetic disputations. The division into six oracles was generally accepted. For other definitions of the genre, see Boecker 1966: 78–80; Wallis 1967: 229–37. For a survey and discussion of the various opinions regarding the genres of the oracles, see Graffy 1984: 2–22; Floyd 2000: 564–68. For the structure of the book and its meaning, see Assis 2010: 354–69. 5. According to Sweeney, the questions are hypothetical (2000: 725–26). Petersen rightly claims that the questions are not rhetorical (1995: 177). 6. For the principle of lex talionis in the biblical narrative, see Shemesh 1999: 261–77; 2003: 89–109; and Jacobs 2006. For an extensive treatment of this topic in prophetic literature, see Miller 1982; Wong 2001.

Reproach of Priests in Malachi’s Conception of Covenant

273

second section, while the end depicts how the priests will have their punishment meted out in like measure and will be despised and abased: “And so I made you despised and abased before all the people” (2:9). It should be noted that the Hebrew words ‫כבד‬, “glorify,” in 2:2 and ‫בזה‬, “despise,” in 2:9 are exact opposites as in 1 Sam 2:30, Nah 2:10, and Ps 15:4. Certain scholars have regarded the whole unit from 1:6 to 2:9 as one continuous oracle (Petersen 1995: 176–77), but this opinion ignores the significant differences between the two parts. The first part deals with sacrifices and the second with the priests’ role as God’s envoys to the people (instructing them and attempting to improve their moral behavior). Among scholars who regard the unit as one continuous oracle are some who argue that the first part constitutes a reproach to the priests and describes their iniquitous behavior (1:6–14), while the second part describes their punishment (2:1–9). 7 This explanation, however, is not accurate. Though the first part does indeed contain a reproach, it also mentions punishment (1:14), and while the second part depicts punishment (2:1–2:9), it is primarily a rebuke (2:4–8). Some scholars claim that the first part addresses both the people and priests, while the second part addresses only the priests. 8 A number of scholars regard the two parts as separate oracles. 9 However, it should be noted there are close connections between these two parts, indicating that they comprise one oracle. Chapter 2 opens with the words “And now, this commandment is for you” (Weyde 2000: 112). The first word, ‫ועתה‬, “and now,” indicates a continuation, or introduces a conclusion to what has already been stated (DBH: 841). In both parts of the oracle, the prophet accuses the priests of lacking respect for the Lord (1:6; 2:2) and emphasis is placed on “the name of God” (1:6, 11, 14; 2:2). The two parts are united by the fact that they both contain clear allusions to the priestly blessing in Num 6:23–27, as we shall see below (Fishbane 1985: 329–34; 1983: 115–21). Therefore, I follow the opinion held by the majority of scholars that 1:6–2:9 is one oracle (Driver 1906: 301–2; von Bulmerincq 1926: 67). Nonetheless, it is obvious that the two parts 7.  Nowack 1903: 432; Marti 1904: 462, 466; Baldwin 1972: 224–25, 232; Rudolph 1976: 261, 265; and Glazier-McDonald 1987: 47. Floyd suggests that in the first part the priests are criticized for not honoring God as sons should, while in the second part they are criticized for failing to honor God as his servants. Floyd 2000: 594. However, this distinction has no basis in the text. 8.  Smith 1912: 25, 35; Verhoef 1987: 237. Verhoef also distinguishes between the two parts by claiming that the first part is a rebuke and the second is a threat. 9.  Sellin 1929: 593, 598; Verhoef 1987: 171; van Selms 1975: 27–40; McKenzie and Wallace 1983: 550 and n. 3. According to this division, the book consists of seven pericopes and an appendix.

274

Elie Assis

relate to two separate reproaches to the priests. What, then, is the relationship between them? Despite the indications that the two parts are meant to be read as one continuous oracle, they comprise two separate claims against the priests. Thus, from a thematic point of view, they could have been presented separately. 10 In order to understand the oracle accurately, we need to understand the relationship between its parts. 11

The Reciprocity Theme in Malachi The second (1:6–2:9), fourth (2:17–3:6), fifth (3:3–12), and sixth (3:13–21) oracles are all built on the theme of reciprocity between God and the people. By “reciprocity,” I refer to the mutual commitments between the people and the Lord. The fourth (2:17–3:6) and sixth (3:13– 21) oracles deal with reward and punishment. In the fourth oracle, the people claim, “Everyone who does evil is good in the sight of the Lord, and He delights in them,” a statement that rests on the assumption that God is supposed to do good for those who are good (e.g., Lev 26:3–41; Deut 4:1; 7:12–16; and 11:13–21). The people maintain that the opposite is evident, that the wicked prosper and not the righteous. The prophet’s response reflects his agreement with the claim in principle: He states that in the future God will give the wicked the punishment they deserve (3:2, 5). The sixth oracle is based on the same theme. In this oracle, the people, who have walked in the way of the Lord until now, express regret for having done so because they were not rewarded, while evildoers were successful (3:14). Here, too, the prophet’s response reflects divine agreement with the people’s expectations that the principle of retribution should be apparent. The prophet answers that in the future, God will reward those who walk in His path and punish the sinners (3:17–21). The dispute between the prophet and the people is not over the principle, nor even over different interpretations of reality, but over the timing: the people expect an immediate reward, but God promises a reward in the future. 12 The fifth oracle (3:7–12), in which the people are reproached for their deceit in the bringing of tithes and offerings, is also based on the theme of reciprocity. Surprisingly, instead of imposing punishment on the sinners, 10.  Utzschneider is of the opinion that the two parts were originally written as one literary composition (1989: 40–41). 11.  For the composition and the literary growth of 1:6–2:9, see Meinhold 2000– 2002: 73–76, 87. Most scholars uphold the cohesion of the pericope; see, e.g. Rudolph 1976: 262. 12.  A similar dispute between the people and the prophet is found in Haggai regarding the building of the temple. See Assis 2008a: 595–96.

Reproach of Priests in Malachi’s Conception of Covenant

275

the prophet proposes that the people test God by bringing their tithes and offerings appropriately to see whether God will reciprocate by pouring out an abundance of blessings: “and thereby put Me to the test . . . if I will not open the windows of heaven for you, and pour down for you an overflowing blessing” (3:10). He also promises the people that if they do this, God will prevent pests harming the crops (v. 11). In no other biblical source is such a direct link between tithes and reward established, nor in any other source does the possibility arise that the people will test God to see if He will reward their observance of the divine commandments. In an extraordinary way, this oracle also focuses on reciprocity, making it apparent that the last three oracles of the book share a common theme. 13 In my opinion, the second oracle (1:6–2:9) is also based on reciprocity, and comprehending this facilitates the understanding of the relationship between the two parts. In the first part of this oracle, scholars distinguish between the accusations made to the priests and those made to the people. In v. 6, the priests are addressed directly: “O priests, who despise My name.” From here, the oracle continues in the second person plural. Thus, many scholars infer that the entire oracle is addressed to the priests. But a number of scholars have rightly pointed out that v. 14 is addressed to the people, to whom the animals on the farms belonged: “Cursed be the cheat who has a male in his flock and vows to give it, and yet sacrifices to God what is blemished.” 14 At what point in the text are the people first addressed? There is no consensus on this question. 15 It seems to me that the address to the people starts with v. 12 and ends with v. 14. The evidence for this lies in the dual structure of the message of this part of the oracle, which can clearly be divided into two parts 1:7–11 and 1:12–14. The components of the second part are a duplication of parallel components in the first part, as can be seen in table 1. 16 Verhoef is of the opinion that the repetition of vv. 12–14 was designed to emphasize and reinforce the claim 13.  For the structure of Malachi, see Assis 2010: 354–69. For the structure of the last three pericopes, see p. 359. 14.  See, e.g., Verhoef 1987: 234. Baldwin, however, assigns the whole passage to the priests and thus claims that the Levites and priests had animals of their own (1972: 231). 15.  According to Petersen (1995:184), vv. 6–13 are addressed to the priests and v. 14 to both the people and the priests. See also Floyd 2000: 594–95. Redditt (1995: 163) thinks that vv. 6–10 are directed to the priests and vv. 11–14 to both the lay people and the priests. According to McKenzie and Wallace (1983: 557), vv. 6–14 are directed to both priests and people. 16.  For a similar structure, see also Meinhold 2000–2002: 79–83; Mason 1977: 145; and Hill 1998: 219.

276

Elie Assis

in vv. 6–11. 17 Petersen notes that the repetition alludes to the fact that the dialogue between the prophet and the priests is not advancing produc­ tively. 18 It seems to me that vv. 7–11 are directed toward the priests, rebuking them for bringing improper sacrifices to the altar, while vv. 12–14 are directed toward the people, rebuking them for bringing blemished animals to the priests for sacrifice. Accordingly, there is a distinction between the verb “offer” (‫תגישו‬, ‫ )תגישון‬in v. 8, which usually appears in the context of the priests’ sacrificial activity, and the verb “present” (‫ )הבאתם‬in v. 13, which typically describes the act of the individual who contributes the offering that the priest will sacrifice, for example, Lev 2:8, “And you shall bring (‫ )הבאת‬the meal-offering that is made of these things unto the Lord; and it shall be presented unto the priest, and he shall bring (‫)והגישה‬ it unto the altar.” The first part, vv. 7–11, is longer and more detailed because the priests are the main guilty parties. As those who actually perform the sacrifices on the altar, the priests are the people’s envoys before God in the temple cult service. The second part of the oracle, 2:1–9, is about not the cult function of the priests but their role as representatives of God to the people, as models of honesty who have God’s torah always on their lips. Priests are assigned the duty of teaching the people and instructing them in the ways of the torah: “and men should seek the law at his mouth” (2:7). 19 An additional duty indicated here is to bring sinners to repent: “turn many away from iniquity” (2:6). Generally in biblical literature, this responsibility falls on the prophets, not the priests. The descriptions of the priest’s duties here are presented within a new definition of the priest as “the messenger of the Lord of hosts” (2:7) formulated in the book of Malachi. 20 17.  Verhoef 1987: 232–34. Because of the universalistic attitude in vv. 11–14, which many felt did not coalesce with Malachi’s particularistic view, some scholars have suggested that Mal 1:10–14 is a later addition; see Horst 1939: 259–60; Elliger 1949: 189, 198–99. Swetnam (1969: 209–20) demonstrated how these verses fit into the prophet’s message. 18.  Petersen 1995: 185 n. 36. Floyd explains that vv. 6–9 are an accusation, whereas vv. 10–14 are an announcement of the punishment (2000: 594). Smith states that vv. 12–14 repeat vv. 6–10, but he comments that v. 13 is a new charge against the priests (1984: 316). 19.  For the priest as the authority and teacher of torah, see Deut 16:8–9; 33:10; Jer 18:18; Ezek 7:26; Hag 2:11; Zech 7:3; and 2 Chr 15:3. See de Vaux 1997: 353–55. On the function of the priest as a teacher, see Cody 1969: 118–19. 20.  Another source that apparently views the priest as a ‫ מלאך‬is Zech 3:3–7; see also Zer-Kavod 1977: 8 n. 63; Conrad 1999: 94–95. Some have explained that Joshua is granted prophetic qualities. See, e.g., Meyers and Meyers 1987: 196–97; Petersen 1984: 208. I agree with Boda’s objection (2001) to this understanding. Boda, follow-

Reproach of Priests in Malachi’s Conception of Covenant

277

Table 1.  Address to the People in Malachi 1 Malachi 1:7–11

Malachi 1:12–14

‫אמ ְַר ֶּתם ַּבּמֶה‬ ֲ ‫ְּב ִחי ֶלחֶם ְמגֹאָל ַו‬ ְ ‫יׁשים עַל ִמז‬ ִ ‫מ ִַּג‬ ‫י‬.‫ִבזֶה הּוא‬ ְ ‫ֻלחַן יהוה נ‬ ְ ‫ָרכֶם ׁש‬ ְ ‫אמ‬ ֱ ‫ֵגא ְַלנּוךָ ֶּב‬ ‫ְו ִכי תַ ִּגׁשּון ִעּוֵר ִלזְּב ֹ ַח אֵין ָרע ְו ִכי תַ ִּגיׁשּו ִּפ ֵּס ַח‬ ‫ְוחֹלֶה אֵין ָרע‬ ָ‫הִיּשָֹא ָפנֶיך‬ ֲ ‫הי ְִר ְצךָ אֹו‬ ֲ ָ‫ָתך‬ ֶ ‫ה ְַקִריבֵהּו נָא ְל ֶפח‬ ‫ ְוע ַָּתה חַּלּו נָא ְפנֵי אֵל ִוי ָחּנֵנּו‬.‫ָאמַר יהוה ְצבָאֹות‬ ‫הִיּשָֹא ִמּכֶם ָּפנִים ָאמַר יהוה‬ ֲ ‫ְתה ּזֹאת‬ ָ ‫ֶדכֶם ָהי‬ ְ ‫ִמּי‬ ‫ִסּגֹר ְּדלָתַ יִם ְולֹא ָת ִאירּו‬ ְ ‫ ִמי גַם ָּבכֶם ְוי‬.‫ְצבָאֹות‬ ‫ְּב ִחי ִחּנָם אֵין ִלי ֵחפֶץ ָּבכֶם ָאמַר יהוה ְצבָאֹות‬ ְ ‫ִמז‬ ‫י‬.‫ֶדכֶם‬ ְ ‫ֶרצֶה ִמּי‬ ְ ‫ּומ ְנחָה לֹא א‬ ִ ‫ׁש ִמי‬ ְ ‫ׁשמֶׁש ְועַד ְמבֹואֹו ּגָדֹול‬ ֶ ‫יא ִּכי ִמ ִּמזְרַ ח‬ ‫ּומ ְנחָה‬ ִ ‫ׁש ִמי‬ ְ ‫ֻקטָר מֻּגָׁש ִל‬ ְ ‫ּובכָל מָקֹום מ‬ ְ ‫ּבַּגֹויִם‬ ‫י‬.‫ׁש ִמי ּבַּגֹויִם ָאמַר יהוה ְצבָאֹות‬ ְ ‫הֹורה ִּכי גָדֹול‬ ָ ‫ְט‬

‫ַּתם ְמח ְַּל ִלים אֹותֹו‬ ֶ ‫ְוא‬ ‫ִבזֶה‬ ְ ‫ֻלחַן אֲדֹנָי ְמגֹאָל הּוא ְונִיבֹו נ‬ ְ ‫ָרכֶם ׁש‬ ְ ‫אמ‬ ֱ ‫ֶּב‬ ‫י‬.‫ָכלֹו‬ ְ ‫א‬. ‫אמ ְַר ֶּתם ִהּנֵה מ ְַּת ָלאָה ְו ִהּפ ְַח ֶּתם אֹותֹו ָאמַר‬ ֲ ‫ַו‬ ‫יהוה ְצבָאֹות‬ ‫ֵאתם ּגָזּול ְואֶת ה ִַּפ ֵּס ַח ְואֶת הַחֹולֶה‬ ֶ ‫הב‬ ֲ ‫ַו‬ ‫ֵאתם אֶת ה ִַּמ ְנחָה‬ ֶ ‫הב‬ ֲ ‫ַו‬ ‫י‬.‫ֶדכֶם ָאמַר יהוה‬ ְ ‫אֹותּה ִמּי‬ ָ ‫ֶרצֶה‬ ְ ‫ַהא‬ ‫ֶדרֹו זָכָר ְונֹדֵ ר ְוז ֹ ֵב ַח‬ ְ ‫ְואָרּור נֹוכֵל ְוי ֵׁש ְּבע‬ ‫ָׁשחָת לַאדֹנָי‬ ְ‫מ‬ ְ ‫ִּכי ֶמל‬ ‫ּוׁש ִמי‬ ְ ‫ֶך ּגָדֹול ָאנִי ָאמַר יהוה ְצבָאֹות‬ ‫י‬.‫נֹורָא בַּגֹויִם‬

By offering polluted food on my altar. And you say, “How have we polluted it?” By saying that the Lord’s table is despised. When you offer blind animals in sacrifice, is that not wrong? And when you offer those that are lame or sick, is that not wrong? Try presenting that to your governor; will he accept you or show you favor? says the Lord of hosts. And now implore the favor of God, that he may be gracious to us. The fault is yours. Will he show favor to any of you? says the Lord of hosts. Oh, that someone among you would shut the temple doors, so that you would not kindle fire on my altar in vain! I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord of hosts, and I will not accept an offering from your hands. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts.

But you profane it by saying that the Lord’s table is polluted, and the food for it is despised. “What a weariness this is,” you say, and you sniff at me, says the Lord of hosts. You bring what has been taken by violence or is lame or sick, and this you bring as your offering! Shall I accept that from your hand? says the Lord. Cursed be the cheat who has a male in the flock and vows to give it, and yet sacrifices to the Lord what is blemished; for I am a great King, says the Lord of hosts, and my name is reverenced among the nations.

ing Rose, interprets the verse as a promise to Joshua that he will be provided with persons who will have access to the heavenly court, but this will not be granted to Joshua himself. See Rose 2000: 78–79; VanderKam 1991: 560. It has been suggested that the

278

Elie Assis

In fact, the oracle is divided according to two separate functions of the priest. In the first part, the priest serves as a representative of the people before God. He brings their sacrifices and performs the cultic ceremonies in their name. However, the priest also functions as a representative of God to the people, guiding them in the way of the torah and turning them back from iniquity. 21 The prophet rebukes the priests for failures in both of their roles: They have not fulfilled properly their function as the people’s representative before God, and they have not fulfilled their function as representatives of God among the people. The emphasis on the dual function of the priest in the two parts of the oracle is of great significance to one of the main subjects underlying Malachi’s prophecies: the people’s self-identity. Elsewhere, it has been proposed that the prophecy relating to Edom (1:1–5) is intended to counter the people’s claim that they are no longer the chosen people and that Edom has been chosen in their stead (Assis 2006: 1–20). This claim encouraged a universalistic outlook, generating a blurring of the distinctions between Israel and foreigners, and even justifying marriage with them (Assis 2009: 109–20). To offset this perspective, the prophet asserts that Edom has been rejected by God and Israel is the chosen people and therefore should not mix with foreign nations. The prophet’s purpose is to emphasize that the covenantal relationship between God and the people is still valid and is still incumbent on both God and the people. The third oracle (2:10–16), which is concerned with mixed marriage, relates to the ramifications of the validity of the covenantal relationship: because they are the people of God, Israel should preserve its national identity by avoiding marriage with foreigners. This concept of reciprocity, central to the work of Malachi, explains why the second oracle is divided into two parts. The second oracle, like the first (1:2–5) and third (2:10–16), is based on the nature of the affinity between the people and God. But in the second oracle, the priests are accused of neglecting their role by not establishing and strengthening the connection between the people and God. Their function as intermediaries is, as has been said, a dual function. On the one hand, they are supposed term ‫ מלאך‬in Eccl 5:5 refers to the priest as well. See Weyde 2000: 197. See also, e.g., Krüger 2004: 109. However, it is possible that the term in Ecclesiastes refers to another figure, such as the hazzan, as explained in Midrash Tanhuma-Yelammedenu (printed version; Warsaw 1879), Vayyishlah 8. The hazzan in Talmudic times performed as an official in the synagogue; on this see Kublin 2007: 502. The Septuagint and the Syriac have God instead of malach. 21.  See also Verhoef 1987: 257–58.

Reproach of Priests in Malachi’s Conception of Covenant

279

to bring the sacrifices of the people before God and in this way express the loyalty of the people to God. On the other hand, the priests are supposed to represent God among the people, to bring them to walk in the ways of God. Because the priests have been negligent in their performance of this dual function, the rift in the relationship between the people and God has widened, as is expressed in the first (1:2–5) and third oracles (2:10–16).  22 In the light of this approach to the oracle, we can also understand some of the oracle’s unique features. First is its length, resulting from the two parts that express the dual function of the priests. Another feature that many scholars have pointed out is that the prophet’s reproach in the first part of the oracle about bringing blemished sacrifices is exceptional in all prophetic literature. There is no other prophetic source rebuking the people on this matter 23; on the contrary, the prophets typically uttered the opposite complaint, that God preferred justice and mercy to correct ritual behavior (e.g., 1 Sam 15:22; Isa 1:11–17, Jer 7:3–15; Hos 6:6; Amos 5:21–25; Mic 6:6–8; and Ps 51:18–19). There is no preaching about cult ritual even in the postexilic prophets Haggai and Zechariah. Although Haggai urges the people to build the temple, he is silent on the ritual itself. 24 When we understand the second oracle in the context of the covenantal relationship between God and Israel, we see why Malachi’s criticism of the people emphasizes ritual. The people have lost their motivation to worship God because they doubt their identity as God’s people. If we distinguish between the two functions of the priest as the envoy of the people in the first part of the oracle and as the envoy of the Lord in the second part, it explains why the people are rebuked in the first part (vv. 12–14) but not in the second. Another point that is better understood is the prophet’s pronouncement of God’s sentiment: “I have no pleasure in you . . . and I will not accept an offering from your hand” (1:10). God’s proclamation that He is not interested in the priests because of their cultic practice is 22. For the idea of covenant in this pericope, see McKenzie and Wallace 1983: 557–60. 23.  Schwartz claims that Psalm 50 is a rebuke almost identical to Malachi’s. Though indeed there are similarities between the two sources, there are also contradictions. Ps 50:8 reads: “I censure you not for your sacrifices, and your burnt offerings, made to Me daily,” and this is exactly what Malachi does in 1:6–14. See Schwartz 1978–79: 86. 24.  Assis 2008b: 1–10. Some commentators believe that Hag 2:10–19 is a critique of the sacrificial activity on the altar before the building of the temple was completed. See, e.g., Boda 2004: 140–49. This interpretation was already suggested by Jewish medieval commentators (Kimḥi and Abravanel). However, even if this is a correct interpretation of the pericope, the main critique is still mainly over the negligence of the rebuilding of the Temple that causes defilement of the sacrifices.

280

Elie Assis

exceptional. 25 It is indeed difficult to understand this assertion in view of God’s words in the first oracle: “I have loved you” (1:2). These opposite expressions are no coincidence. In view of the proposition raised here, we can understand that the people’s blemished offerings and the priests’ acceptance of them for sacrifices stem from the people’s sense of alienation from God, as expressed in the first oracle. While this sense of alienation did not lead to complete detachment of the people from God and from cult rituals, it did lead to a deterioration in the people’s national identity as we saw in the first (1:2–5) and third (2:10–16) oracles, and to a decline in the people’s performance of the cult ritual, as expressed in the second oracle (Assis 2010: 354–69). In reaction to this, the prophet claims that it is actually the people’s half-hearted, derelict ritual offerings that have weakened their connection to God. The rebuke about cultic ritual is not a self-contained topic but comprises part of the wider issue of the validity of the covenantal relationship between God and the people on which the book as a whole is structured. The foundation on which the book of Malachi is built is the principle of covenant. Because the bitter reality in which the people found themselves fell far short of their expectations for the promised redemption, the people concluded that their covenantal relationship with God had ended. Without a divine covenant, the people lost their sense of national identity, and their sense of universalism––of feeling connected with all humankind–– was strengthened, a combination that led to rampant intermarriage (Assis 2009: 109–20). The prophet’s primary concern, therefore, is to rectify the people’s perception that their relationship with God has dissolved. The gulf between what the people expect and what they actually experience finds expression in the oracles of Malachi. In the first oracle, for example, the people claim that Edom, not Judah, is the chosen people. In the fourth and sixth oracles, the people accuse God of injustice: good is not rewarded, they say, and evil is not punished. God, in response, offers counter-accusations, resulting in a natural division in the book between the three accusations issued by the people against God and the three of25.  In all English translations, the word ‫ חפץ‬is translated as “pleasure.” Thus, the meaning of the verse is “I have no pleasure in you.” See KJV, NRSV, AV, ESV, NASB, JPSV. This translation is also found in the standard dictionaries: BDB, HALOT, DCH. I believe that the meaning of the word is “desire.” This meaning is also found in the Targum as ‫ רַ עֲוָא‬and the Septuagint as θέλημα. Most Jewish dictionaries and interpreters explain it in this way, e.g., Kimḥi; Ibn Ganah, Sefer Haschoraschim, 164. Thus, the correct translation is “I have no desire for you.” The prophet is stating that he wants neither the people’s offerings nor the people themselves. Weyde (2000: 143–46) has explained the phrase in a similar way.

Reproach of Priests in Malachi’s Conception of Covenant

281

fered by God against the people. The ensuing balance highlights the central message of Malachi that the people are mistaken in their belief that the covenant with God is no longer valid. Despite their harsh rhetoric, God’s speeches are intended not to threaten or remonstrate but to encourage and reassure. When the prophet chastises the people for their lack of observance of the commandments, his intention is to remind them of obligations within a framework of covenant. Even the first, fourth, and sixth oracles, in which God openly rebukes the people for their statements, are designed to demonstrate to the people God’s commitment to them and to the covenantal relationship with Israel. The prophet’s words constitute a reminder to the people that the covenant that obliges them to honor God and walk in His path will also be expressed through justice and through God’s favor toward them as His chosen people.

The Covenant of Levi and the Priest as the Messenger of the Lord The priests are criticized in this oracle because they were remiss in their duty as envoys between God and the people, and failed to strengthen the covenantal relationship. This point helps explain the author’s use of the term ‫בריתי את־לוי‬, or “the covenant of Levi” (2:4–5), to define the framework of the priests’ obligation. 26 A number of attempts have been made to determine the origin of the Levite covenant. The most closely related biblical source is in Jer 33:21–22, which discusses the eternal covenant between God and the house of David, and between God and “the Levites the priests.” Like Malachi, Jeremiah emphasizes that Israel has retained its special status as the chosen people even after the destruction of the temple, in opposition to the prevailing notion among the people that God had rejected them. Scholars debating the roots of the Levite covenant have proposed various solutions. Smith argues that Malachi sees the priests as the sons of Levi. This idea originated in Deuteronomy and thus precedes the Priestly Code, which identifies the priests as sons of Zadok or Aaron (Smith 1912: 38; Devescovi 1962). Petersen suggests that the covenant of Levi originated in Deut 33:9 (Petersen 1995: 190), but that verse specifies that the Levite will keep a covenant that is between God and the people, not one between God and Levi. Though Petersen identifies an expression of the 26. Scholars have debated the relationship between the priests’ commandment ‫המצוה הזאת‬, and the priests’ covenant. For various opinions, see Hill 1998: 204–5.

282

Elie Assis

Levites’ fidelity within the narrative of Exod 32:25–29, it should be noted that the narrative does not contain the word ‫ברית‬. Other scholars trace the “covenant of Levi” to the “covenant of peace between God and Phinehas” mentioned in the narrative in Num 25:11– 13, which describes how Phinehas acted to halt God’s wrath against the people for their sin at Baal Peor and for which he was granted an eternal covenant of priesthood (Meyers 1986: 232; Glazier–McDonald 1987: 79–80). Though the content and phraseology of the Malachi oracle and the Phinehas narrative are similar, the covenant with Phinehas is more specific, and includes only Phinehas’s descendants, not the Levites (Smith 1912: 38; Baldwin 1972: 234). It seems likely to me that the two covenants share facets that were applied independently to two separate but related groups. Therefore, rather than seeking out the origins of the Levite covenant in earlier sources, we should strive to understand the covenant in its context within the oracle of Malachi. As we have seen, the priests had a dual function, serving as mediators between God and the people by offering the people’s sacrifices to the Lord and by teaching the divine torah to the people. Because the prophet holds the priests responsible for maintaining the relationship of the covenant (‫ )ברית‬between the people and God, he also designates the priests’ role as a ‫ברית‬. I suggest that the use of the term “covenant of Levi” should be understood not as a concept formulated in Malachi, but rather as an associative term used for rhetorical purposes. In light of the people’s belief that their covenantal relationship with God had ceased to exist, the centrality of the covenantal concept in Malachi explains another anomaly in the book: the term ‫“( מלאך‬messenger”), which refers to priest as well as prophet. The priest is called a messenger in Mal 2:7. The prophet Haggai is called a messenger (Hag 1:13), and the use of Malachi (“my messenger”) for the book’s title suggests that the prophet is indeed a messenger. Some explain that the priests succeeded the prophets and are termed “messenger” because they assumed the functions that had formerly been performed by the prophets (for example, Dentan 1956: 1133). Verhoef rightly points out that both references are postexilic (Verhoef 1987: 258). I believe the fact that Malachi uses the same term for both prophet and priests may indicate that they share common tasks to strengthen the people’s sense that the covenantal relationship with God is still intact. Because the priests did not carry out this duty as expected, Malachi criticizes them. Priests are supposed to be the messengers of God (2:7), and Malachi expects no less from them than from the prophets, hence the

Reproach of Priests in Malachi’s Conception of Covenant

283

Table 2. The Oracle’s Ties with Priestly Blessing in Numbers Malachi 1:6–10, 14; 2:2–3, 9 (1:6) . . . ‫ׁש ִמי‬ ְ ‫הנִים ּבֹוז ֵי‬ ֲֹ ‫ָלכֶם הַּכ‬ (1:8) . . . ָ‫הִיּשָֹא ָפנֶיך‬ ֲ . . . (1:9) ‫ְוע ַָּתה חַּלּו נָא ְפנֵי אֵל ִוי ָחּנֵנּו‬ ‫הִיּשָֹא ִמּכֶם ָּפנִים‬ ֲ ‫ְתה זֹאת‬ ָ ‫ֶדכֶם ָהי‬ ְ ‫ִמּי‬ (1:10) . . . ‫ְּב ִחי ִחּנָם‬ ְ ‫ְולֹא ָת ִאירּו ִמז‬ (1:14) ‫ֶדרֹו זָכָר‬ ְ ‫ ְואָרּור נֹוכֵל ְוי ֵׁש ְּבע‬. . . ‫י‬:‫נֹורא בַּגֹויִם‬ ָ ‫ּוׁש ִמי‬ ְ (2:2). . . ‫ׁש ִמי‬ ְ ‫ לָתֵ ת ּכָבֹוד ִל‬. . . ‫ָרֹותי אֶת‬ ִ ‫ׁשּל ְַח ִּתי ָבכֶם אֶת ה ְַּמא ֵָרה ְוא‬ ִ ‫ְו‬ ‫ָרֹותי ָה‬ ִ ‫ִּב ְרכֹותֵ יכֶם ְוגַם א‬ ‫ י‬:‫ׂש ִמים עַל לֵב‬ ָ ‫ִּכי אֵי ְנכֶם‬ (2:3) .‫ֶתכֶם ֵאלָיו‬ ְ ‫ָׂשא א‬ ָ ‫ ְונ‬. . . (2:9) ‫ָלים‬ ִ ‫ּוׁשפ‬ ְ ‫ִבזִים‬ ְ ‫ֶתכֶם נ‬ ְ ‫אנִי נָתַ ִּתי א‬ ֲ ‫ְוגַם‬ ‫ְלכָל ָהעָם‬ ‫ֲׁשר אֵי ְנכֶם ׁש ֹ ְמִרים אֶת ְּד ָרכַי ְונ ֹ ְׂש ִאים‬ ֶ ‫ְּכ ִפי א‬ ‫י‬.‫ַּתֹורה‬ ָ ‫ ָּפנִים ּב‬.

Numbers 6:23–27 (v. 27) ‫אנִי‬ ֲ ‫ִשׂ ָראֵל ַו‬ ְ ‫שׁ ִמי עַל ְבּנֵי י‬ ְ ‫שׂמוּ אֶת‬ ָ ‫ְו‬ ‫י‬.‫א ָברֲכֵם‬ ֲ (v. 26)‫י‬.‫שׁלוֹם‬ ָ ָ‫ִשּׂא יהוה ָפּנָיו ֵאלֶיךָ ְויָשֵׂ ם ְלך‬ ָ‫י‬ (25)‫י‬.ָ‫יָאֵר יהוה ָפּנָיו ֵאלֶיךָ ִוי ֻחנֶּךּ‬ (v. 26)‫י‬.‫שׁלוֹם‬ ָ ָ‫ִשּׂא יהוה ָפּנָיו ֵאלֶיךָ ְויָשֵׂ ם ְלך‬ ָ‫י‬ (v. 25)‫י‬.ָ‫יָאֵר יהוה ָפּנָיו ֵאלֶיךָ ִוי ֻחנֶּךּ‬ (v. 23) .‫ִשׂ ָראֵל אָמוֹר‬ ְ ‫כֹּה ְת ָברֲכוּ אֶת ְבּנֵי י‬ ‫ָלהֶם‬ (v. 24) .ָ‫ִשׁ ְמרֶך‬ ְ ‫ֶכךָ יהוה ְוי‬ ְ ‫ְי ָבר‬ (v. 27) ‫אנִי‬ ֲ ‫ִשׂ ָראֵל ַו‬ ְ ‫שׁ ִמי עַל ְבּנֵי י‬ ְ ‫שׂמוּ אֶת‬ ָ ‫ְו‬ ‫י‬.‫א ָברֲכֵם‬ ֲ (v. 27) ‫אנִי‬ ֲ ‫ִשׂ ָראֵל ַו‬ ְ ‫שׁ ִמי עַל ְבּנֵי י‬ ְ ‫שׂמוּ אֶת‬ ָ ‫ְו‬ ‫י‬.‫א ָברֲכֵם‬ ֲ (v. 26)‫י‬.‫שׁלוֹם‬ ָ ָ‫ִשּׂא יהוה ָפּנָיו ֵאלֶיךָ ְויָשֵׂ ם ְלך‬ ָ‫י‬ (v. 23) .‫ִשׂ ָראֵל אָמוֹר‬ ְ ‫כֹּה ְת ָברֲכוּ אֶת ְבּנֵי י‬ ‫ָלהֶם‬ (v. 26)‫י‬.‫שׁלוֹם‬ ָ ָ‫ִשּׂא יהוה ָפּנָיו ֵאלֶיךָ ְויָשֵׂ ם ְלך‬ ָ‫י‬

identification of Elijah with “the messenger” in 3:23. Whether the title of the book denotes a personal name or is simply the epithet that is attached to the anonymous prophet, its meaning reflects this supreme duty: “My Messenger.”

The Prophet’s Rebuking of the Priests and the Priest’s Blessing of the People The explanation presented above of the reciprocity concept clarifies the purpose of the oracle’s close ties with the Priestly blessing (Num 6:24–27; see table 2). Fishbane (1985: 332–33) concluded that this correspondence is an example of inner-biblical exegesis. In his opinion, the prophet’s strategy was to reverse the Priestly blessing. He accuses the priests of despising both the name of God and the temple service and thereby causing the negation of the divine blessing. It seems to me that this assertion stretches the term inner-biblical exegesis too widely. 27 I agree with Sommer (1998: 27.  Many have included in the category of inner-biblical exegesis any case in which a biblical text refers to, borrows from, or is based on another biblical text. See, e.g., Sarna 1963: 29–46; Zakovitch (1992: 9) defines the term inner-biblical exegesis as “the light one Biblical text sheds on another.” Sommer (1998: 23) correctly points out that “Most examples of what they call inner-biblical exegesis are not, strictly speaking, exegetical; they are allusions.” Against Fishbane’s definition see also Petersen 2003: 215–18; Weyde 2000: 40–43.

284

Elie Assis

23), who believes that this definition should be limited to biblical sources that interpret an earlier biblical text. In this case, the verses in Malachi do not interpret the verses of the Priestly blessing but merely allude to them. The concept on which the allusions are based is again the powerful reciprocity theme that pervades the oracles of Malachi. 28 So far, we have examined this theme in relation to the priests’ roles in the cult ritual and in teaching and guiding the people. An additional duty of the priests was to act as the channel for transferring God’s blessing to the people. Here again, the priests operate as intermediaries. The prophet alludes to the Priestly blessing to impress on the priests that if they do not fulfill their dual obligations to present the people’s ritual offerings to God and to acting on God’s behalf in instructing the people, they should not assume that they will succeed in fulfilling their function of transferring God’s blessing to the people. This oracle is, therefore, similar to the fourth (2:17–3:6), fifth (3:7–12) and sixth (3:13–21) oracles of the book of Malachi in that they are all based on the concept of reciprocity. In the fourth and sixth oracles, the people expect to receive appropriate compensation for doing what is right in God’s eyes. In the fifth oracle, God claims that if the people observe the commandment to give tithes and offerings, they will be recompensed. In the second oracle, the priests expect that God will transfer His blessing to the people through them, even though they do not fulfill their duties to God. The prophet’s allusions remind the priests that reciprocity means that the knife cuts in both directions. One possible explanation for the priests and people having offered blemished sacrifices relates to the concept of reciprocity that is so central to this oracle. Perhaps the people and priests did not bring the best sacrifices because they did not feel that doing so had positive consequences. According to the fourth and sixth oracles, the people expected adequate remuneration for their good deeds in the service of God. When this did not happen, they concluded that it was pointless to serve the Lord. Thus, 3:14 reads: “It is vain to serve God. What is the good of our keeping His charge or of walking as in mourning before the Lord of hosts?” In the second oracle, we see the outcome of the people’s reasoning. Because they considered it futile to serve God, they were not diligent in their cultic worship. The attitude of the people in the fifth oracle (3:7–12) is similar to that in the second oracle (1:6–2:9). The fifth oracle, too, depicts improper observance of God’s commandment to bring tithes and offerings. These instances both involve faults in bringing offerings as part of the cult 28.  For the concept of covenant in Malachi, see Baldwin 1972: 216–17; McKenzie and Wallace 1983: 549–63; Verhoef 1987: 180–81; Mason 1977: 239.

Reproach of Priests in Malachi’s Conception of Covenant

285

ritual, an outlay of money, and the people performing the commandment in a deficient way. The fifth oracle explains the people’s motivation for their negligent observance of the divine commandments: They are not conscientious in bringing offerings and tithes because they do not feel that they are being adequately recompensed by God for observing the commandment. God accepts the people’s claim and challenges them to bring the offerings and tithes to test Him and see for themselves that God will reciprocate by providing economic abundance.

Conclusion The oracle addressed to the priests (1:6–2:9) is divided into two parts. In the first part (1:6–14), the prophet rebukes the priests for not properly fulfilling their duty to sacrifice the people’s offerings, and in the second part (2:1–9), the prophet rebukes them for not properly fulfilling their duty to instruct the people through setting an example of correct behavior and leading them to repent. The division of the oracle into two parts reflects the priests’ functions as envoys of the people to God and as envoys of God among the people. Thus, in the first part, the prophet’s rebuke relates to the priests’ deficiencies in their first role, and in the second part, he rebukes them with regard to deficiencies in their second role. Malachi’s claim throughout the book is that the people believe that the covenantal relationship with God had been eroded. This claim is also the basis of the oracle addressed to the priests. The prophet maintains that the priests, having fallen short in their dual function as envoys, contributed to the widening rift in the covenantal relationship between the people and God. One of Malachi’s main concerns is to counter the people’s perception that they are no longer the people of God, an idea that led to a dilution of national and religious identity, an adoption of a universalistic outlook, and a positive approach toward intermarriage. The prophet argues that the covenantal relationship between God and the people is still valid and obligates both God and the people. Therefore, the people must preserve their national identity by avoiding marriage with foreigners and being diligent in observing God’s commandments. The criticism regarding sacrifices is part of the broader theme on which the book is based: the continued validity of the covenant between the people and God. The analysis offered here of the correspondence between Mal 2:1–9 and the Priestly blessing in Num 6:24–27, noted by many scholars, focused on its significance with relation to the prophet’s central message. The priests acted as a channel for transferring God’s blessing to the people, and in this respect, they functioned as intermediaries. When the prophet

286

Elie Assis

alludes to the Priestly blessing, he is implicitly warning the priests that they are expected to fulfill both of their roles as part of the covenantal agreement with God. If they fail to instruct the people and bring their sacrifices properly, God may not allow them to act as intermediaries in the transference of God’s blessing to the people.

Bibiography Abravanel, Don Isaac ben Judah (1437–1508) 1960 Piruš ʿal Neviʾim Aḥronim u-Ketuvim. Tel-Aviv: Abarbanel. Assis, E. 2006 Why Edom? On the Hostility towards Jacob’s Brother in Prophetic Sources. Vetus Testamentum 56: 1–20. 2008a A Disputed Temple (Haggai 2:1–9). ZAW 120: 595–96. 2008b The Temple in the Book of Haggai. Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 8: 1–10. Online: http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/JHS/Articles/article_96.pdf. 2009 Love, Hate and Self-Identity in Malachi: A New Perspective to Mal 1:1–5 and 2:10–16. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 35: 109–20. 2010 Structure and Meaning in the Book of Malachi. Pp. 354–69 in Prophecy and the Prophets in Ancient Israel: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar, ed. J. Day. Library of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 531. New York: T. & T. Clark. Baldwin, J. G. 1972 Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. TOTC 24. Leicester: InterVarsity. Boda, M. J. 2001 Oil, Crowns and Thrones: Prophet, Priest and King in Zechariah 1:7– 6:15. Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 3: 1–36, article 10. 2004 Haggai, Zechariah. NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Boecker, H. J. 1966 Bemerkungen zur formgeschichtlichen Terminologie des Buches Maleachi. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 78: 78–80. Bulmerincq, A. von 1926 Einleitung in das Buch des Propheten Maleachi. Dorpat: C. Mattiesen. Cody, A. 1969 A History of the Old Testament Priesthood. AnBib 35. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Conrad, E. W. 1999 Zechariah, Readings, A New Biblical Commentary. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Dentan, R. C. 1956 The Book of Malachi. Pp. 1117–44 in vol. 6 of The Interpreter’s Bible, ed. G. A. Buttrick et al. 12 Vols. Nashville: Abingdon. Devescovi, U. 1962 L’alleanza di Jahve con Levi (Mal. 2:1–9). Bibbia e Oriente 4: 205–18. Driver, S. R. 1906 The Minor Prophets. Edinburgh: Jack.

Reproach of Priests in Malachi’s Conception of Covenant

287

Elliger, K. 1949 Das Buch der zwölf Kleinen Propheten. Das Alte Testament Deutsch 25b. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Fishbane, M. 1983 Form and Reformulation of the Biblical Priestly Blessing [Num 6:23]. Journal of the American Oriental Society 103: 115–21. 1985 Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon. Floyd, M. H. 2000 Minor Prophets, Part 2. Forms of the Old Testament Literature 22. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Glazier-McDonald, B. 1987 Malachi: The Divine Messenger. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 98. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Graffy, A. 1984 A Prophet Confronts His People: the Disputation Speech in the Prophets. Analecta Biblica 104. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Hill, A. 1998 Malachi. Anchor Bible 25D. New York: Doubleday. Horst, F. 1939 Die Zwölf Kleinen Propheten. Handbuch zum Alten Testament 14b. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Ibn Janah, Y. 1896 Sefer ha-Shorashim. Berlin: Nirdamim. Jacobs, J. 2006 Measure for Measure in the Storytelling Bible. Alon Shvut: Tevunot [Hebrew]. Kimḥi. 2010 The Twelve Minor Prophets. Mikraʾot Gedolot “Haketer” 12. RamatGan: Bar-Ilan University Press. Krüger, T. 2004 Qoheleth: A Commentary, trans. O. C. Dean. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress. Kublin, H. 2007 Ḥazzan. Pp. 502–3 in vol. 8 of Encyclopedia Judaica, ed. M. Berenbaum and F. Skolnik. 22 vols. Detroit: Gale. Marti, K. 1904 Das Dodekapropheton. Kurzer Handkommentar zum Alten Testament 13. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Mason, R. 1977 The Books of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. Cambridge Biblical Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1990 Preaching the Tradition: Homily and Hermeneutics after Exile. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McKenzie, S. L., and Wallace, H. N. 1983 Covenant Themes in Malachi. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 45: 549–63. Meinhold, A. 2000–2002  Maleachi. Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament 14/8.1–2. Neukirchen-­Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.

288

Elie Assis

Meyers, E. M. 1986 Priestly Language in the Book of Malachi. Hebrew Annual Review 10: 225–37. Meyers, C. L., and Meyers, E. M. 1987 Haggai, Zechariah 1–8. Anchor Bible 25B. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Midrash Tanhuma-Yelammedenu. Warsaw, 1879. Milgrom, J. 2000 Leviticus 17–22. Anchor Bible 3B. New York: Doubleday. Miller, P. D., Jr. 1982 Sin and Judgment in the Prophets: A Stylistic and Theological Analysis. Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 27. Chico, CA: Scholars Press. Nowack, W. 1903 Die kleinen Propheten. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. O’Brien, J. M. 1990 Priest and Levite in Malachi. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 121. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Petersen, D. L. 1984 Haggai, and Zechariah 1–8: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. London: SCM. 1995 Zechariah 9–14 and Malachi. Old Testament Library. London: SCM. 2003 Zechariah 9–14: Methodological Reflections. Pp. 210–24 in Bringing Out the Treasure: Inner-Biblical Allusion in Zechariah 9–14, ed. M. J. Boda and M. H. Floyd. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 370. London: Sheffield Academic Press. Pfeiffer, E. 1959 Die Disputationsworte im Buche Maleachi: Ein Beitrag zur formgeschichtlichen Strukter. Evangelische Theologie 19: 546–68. Redditt. P. L. 1995 Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. NCBC. London: Pickering. Reynolds, C. 1993 Malachi and Priesthood. Ph.D. dissertation. Yale University. Rose, H. R. 2000 Zemah and Zerubbabel: Messianic Expectations in the Early Postexilic Period. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 304. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Rudolph, W. 1976 Haggai—Sacharja 1–8—Sacharja 9–14—Maleachi. Kommentar zum Alten Testament 13d. Gütersloh: Gutersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn. Sarna, N. M. 1963 Psalm 89: A Study in Inner-Biblical Exegesis. Pp. 29–46 in Biblical and Other Studies, ed. A. Altmann. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Schaper, J. 2004 The Priests in the Book of Malachi and their Opponents. Pp. 177–88 in The Priests in the Prophets: The Portrayal of Priests, Prophets and Other Religious Specialists in the Latter Prophets, ed. L. L. Grabbe and A. O. Bellis.

Reproach of Priests in Malachi’s Conception of Covenant

289

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 408. London: T. & T. Clark. Schwartz, B. 1978–79  Psalm 50, Its Subject, Form and Place. Shnaton: An Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies 3: 77–106. [Hebrew; English abstract, p. xii] Sellin, E. 1929 Das Zwölfprophetenbuch. Kommentar zum Alten Testament 12. Leipzig: Deichert. Selms, A. van 1975 The Inner Cohesion of the Book of Malachi. Pp. 27–40 in Studies in Old Testament Prophecy: Papers Read at the Thirteenth Meeting Held at the University of the Orange Free State, Bloemfontein 1970 and at the University of Stellenbosch 1971, ed. W. C. van Wyk. Die Ou-Testamentiese Werkgemeenskap in Suid-Afrika 13/14. Potchefstroom: Pro Rege. Shemesh, Y. 1999 Measure for Measure in Biblical Narrative. Beit Mikra 44: 261–77. [Hebrew; English abstract, pp. 282–83] 2003 Measure for Measure in the David Stories. Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 17: 89–109. Smith, J. L. 1912 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Malachi. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Smith, R. L. 1984 Micah–Malachi. Word Biblical Commentary 32. Waco, TX: Word. Sommer, B. D. 1998 A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusions in Isaiah 40–46. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Sweeney, M. A. 2000 The Twelve Prophets. Berit Olam 2. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press. Swetnam, J. 1969 Malachi 1:11: An Interpretation. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 31: 209–20. Utzschneider, H. 1989 Künder oder Schreiber? Eine These zum Problem der “Schriftprophetie” auf Grund von Maleachi 1,6–2,9. Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des Antiken Judentums 19. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Wallis, G. 1967 Wesen und Struktur der Bostschaft Maleachis. Pp. 229–37 in Das ferne und nahme Wort, ed. F. L. Rost and F. Maass. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 105. Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann. Wellhausen, J. 1897 Die kleinen Propheten übersetzt und erklärt. Berlin: Reimer. VanderKam, J. C. 1991 Joshua the High Priest and the Interpretation of Zechariah 3. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 53: 553–70. Vaux, R. de 1997 Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions, trans. J. McHugh. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

290

Elie Assis

Verhoef, P. A. 1987 The Books of Haggai and Malachi. New International Commentary on the Old Testament 13c. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Weyde, K. L. 2000 Prophecy and Teaching: Prophetic Authority, Form Problems, and the Use of Traditions in the Book of Malachi. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 288. Berlin: de Gruyter. Wong, K. L. 2001 The Idea of Retribution in the Book of Ezekiel. Vetus Testamentum Supplement 97. Leiden: Brill. Zakovitch, Y. 1992 An Introduction to Inner-Biblical Interpretation. Even-Yehuda: Reches. [Hebrew] Zer-Kavod, M. 1977 Zechariah. Daat Mikra 13b. Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook. [Hebrew]

Achaemenid Persian Concepts Pertaining to Covenant and Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi Christine Mitchell St. Andrew’s College

With the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus the Great in 539 B.C.E. and the later conquest of Egypt by Cambyses,  1 the axis of power in the ancient eastern Mediterranean shifted dramatically away from Babylon-toMemphis to Persia. Persian military might based on cavalry, Persian ideology of kingship, Persian political organization, Persian cult and theology all began to exert their influence on a world hitherto dominated by the systems of Mesopotamia and Egypt. But there is a dearth of studies of this influence on the authors of what came to be biblical texts, in favor of studies of continuing Mesopotamian and/or Egyptian influence along with the influence of the rising Greek power. If covenant as a concept had its origins in the form and substance of treaties, then when there is only one Great King, and no more treaties between vassals and suzerains, what kind of shifts might have happened to the concept of covenant during the period of Achaemenid rule? In this contribution, I will examine one particular Achaemenid Persian concept, bandaka, and its echoes in the biblical texts of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi as an example of how a Persian concept is a better analogue than Mesopotamian ones during this period.

Achaemenid Covenants? What meaning might covenant have had or how might it have been expressed by the Achaemenids? There is a lacuna in the discussion of 1.  While Herodotus gives Cambyses the credit for conquering Egypt (Hist. 3), Darius claims its conquest for himself in one of the Suez inscriptions (DZc). Note that Bisitun says only that Cambyses went to Egypt, not that he conquered it (DB 1.32–33). On balance, the modern historian would agree with the claim for Cambyses (cf. Briant 2002: 50–61). All Old Persian inscriptions are labelled as in Kent 1953, with text based on Schmitt 2009.

291

292

Christine Mitchell

covenant­, understandably, given the general nondiscussion of Achaemenid ideology by biblical scholars. There has been a tendency to assume that earlier ancient Near Eastern text-forms, such as Assyrian vassal treaties, and related concepts, such as covenant, continued on in the Persian period. This is an unwarranted assumption; even if the Achaemenids borrowed liberally from other cultures in terms of iconography, artistic technique, writing, and so on, there are some very specifically Persian—that is, Iranian—aspects to their ideology (Lincoln 2007, 2012; Skaervø 2005). Relationships, whether personal or corporate, can reasonably be examined for their indigenous dynamics; relationships form the core of social and cultural interactions. The common ancient Near Eastern analog to covenant, vassal treaty, does not exist from the Achaemenid period. This may be because of the dearth of historical documents from the Achaemenids: as we know, for historical reconstruction we have to rely on the Greek sources. But there are many archival documents that exist from the Persian period, for example, the Persepolis Fortification tablets, Elephantine archives, and so on, and they do not include things such as vassal treaties. More importantly, the imperial inscriptions do not include vassal treaties. I submit that this is due not to a gap in our evidence but instead to a shift in ideology with the advent of the Achaemenids.

Achaemenid Ideology As the Achaemenids did relate to non-Persians, we might ask what the “replacement” for the vassal treaty form might be. There is not a new genre of text, because of the shift in ideologies. The work of Bruce Lincoln and Clarisse Herrenschmidt, among others, has shown that the ideology around the Achaemenid king was based on a profoundly different cosmology and theology than that of the previous ancient Near Eastern regimes (Lincoln 2012, Herrenschmidt 1977). 2 The following is a brief summary of the Achaemenid cosmology and ideology, based on the arguments of these scholars; the arguments are made largely by analysis of the royal inscriptions and art. 3 The great creator God, Ahuramazda, had created a perfect universe and chosen Darius to be its king: 2.  This essay was largely written before the publication of Bruce Lincoln’s most recent book (2012) and drew on pieces that have been incorporated into the book. The 2012 book is magisterial in its scope and detail and should be consulted as the most comprehensive discussion of Achaemenid ideology/theology now extant. 3. The most important set of sources is the Old Persian texts, with the Greek and Avestan texts used as corroboration or as further support for a notion that may be extrapolated from the OP texts. See Skaervø 1999.

Achaemenid Persian Concepts Pertaining to Covenant

293

baga vazarka Auramazdā A great God is Ahuramazda, haya imām būmīm adā who created this Earth, haya avam asmānam adā who created that Sky, haya martiyam adā who created humanity, haya šiyātim adā martiyahayā who created well-being 4 for humanity, haya Dārayavaum xšāyaθiyam who made Darius king; akunauš aivam parūnām xšāyaθiyam One king over many, aivam parūnām framātāram one commander over many. (DE 1–11) 5

Opponents of the king were not merely misguided or rebellious; they were synonymous with the Lie (drauga), as we can see in the next text where the enemy army, famine, and the Lie are the three threats to Darius’s kingdom. This trio is listed from last to first causation; that is, the Lie is listed last but it causes famine, and also causes or propels the enemy army (Lincoln 2012: 181–83): θātiy Dārayavauš xšāyaθiya manā Auramazdā upastām baratuv hadā visaibiš bagaibiš utā imām dahayāum Auramazdā pātuv hacā haināyā hacā dušiyārā hacā draugā abi imām dahayāum mā ājamiyā mā hainā mā dušiyāram mā drauga aita adam yānam jadiyāmi Auramazdām

Says King Darius: May Ahuramazda bear me aid along with all the Gods, and this land/people may Ahuramazda protect: From the enemy army, from famine, from the Lie; Over this land/people may they not come: Neither the enemy army, nor famine, nor the Lie; This I ask as a gift of Ahuramazda. (DPd 12–22)

The opposite of the Lie was Order (arta). Proper worship of Ahuramazda was done according to Order and Law (dāta). These two concepts also regulated one’s life: Auramazdām yadaisā artācā barzmaniy

You should worship Ahuramazda according to the highest Order.

4.  Šiyāti is usually translated “happiness,” but has a more comprehensive semantic range. I discuss this later in the essay. 5.  All translations my own. The “Creation formula” is found in DE, DNa, DSe, DSf, DSt, DSab, DZc, XE, XPa, XPb, XPc, XPd, XPf, XPh, XV, D2H, A2Hc, A3Pa. Along with the royal titulary formula, it is the most common extended formula in the extant inscriptions. Cf. Herrenschmidt 1977; 1976.

294

Christine Mitchell

martiya haya avanā dātā pariyaiti taya Auramazdā nīštāya utā Auramazdām yadataiy artācā barzmaniy hauv utā jīva šiyāta bavatiy utā marta artāva bavatiy

The person who behaves according to the law that Ahuramazda has laid down, and worships Ahuramazda according to the highest Order, shall both become full of well-being while alive and become according to Order when dead. (XPh 50–56)

Ahuramazda gave the perfect created universe, regulated by Order and Law. It could be disrupted by the Lie, which Darius tells his successors to destroy: θātiy Dārayavauš xšāyaθiya Says King Darius: tuvam kā xšāyaθiya haya aparam āhiy You who may be king hereafter, hacā draugā daršam patipayauvā from the Lie protect yourself strongly; martiya haya draujana ahati The person who is a Liar avam ufraštam parsā punish well yadiy avaθā maniyāhaiy if you in this manner think dahayāušmaiy duruvā ahati “My land/people shall be secure.” (DB 4.36–40)

In the Old Persian inscriptions, the subject peoples are described as doing the king’s will, upholding his law and bearing him tribute. The phraseology is slightly different in the various inscriptions, but the text from Darius’s tomb is broadly representative: imā dahayāva tayā adam agarbāyam apartam hacā Pārsā adamšām patiaxšayaiy manā bājim abaraha tayašām hacāma aθanhaya ava akunava dātam taya manā avadiš adāraya

These are the lands/peoples that I seized far from Persia. I ruled over them; They bore me tribute; That which was commanded of them by me, they did; My law they held. (DNa 16–21)

In this ideology, there is no room for vassals and overlords; there is simply obedience to the king’s will or not. It is in this ideology that we can see the roots of the Greek depiction of the Persian king as an Oriental despot. 6 6.  Indeed, the depiction of Ahasuerus in Esther has much in common with the Greek ideology, and given that it is likely a Hellenistic-era composition, should be seen as dependent on the common Hellenistic motif.

Achaemenid Persian Concepts Pertaining to Covenant

295

The closest analogue under the Achaemenids to a system of vassals and overlords is the bandaka relationship (or bond) between the satraps and the king. The Greeks, who did not fully understand the cosmology of the Persians, are our lens through which we tend to view the Persians. But what the Greeks called despotism was what the Persians called maintaining the cosmic order. Juxtaposed with the picture of the Oriental despot is the scholarly construct of the Persians as rather benevolent, tolerant, and laissez-faire rulers­. This construct also has its roots in Greek writings (for example, Xenophon’s depictions of Cyrus the Great and Cyrus the Younger), as well as the Cyrus Cylinder and the biblical texts of Deutero-Isaiah and Ezra– Nehemiah. Cyrus in particular has had very good press over the millennia. Amelie Kuhrt already almost 30 years ago demonstrated that this reading of the Cyrus Cylinder as tolerant is misguided (1983); Bruce Lincoln’s book (2007) has more thoroughly debunked the scholarly reliance on the Greek and biblical encomiums. Understanding Achaemenid ideology on its own terms and using the Greek, Mesopotamian and biblical texts critically are key to understanding the disappearance of the concept of covenant as treaty.

Bandaka and Covenant Manfred Oeming has argued that ‫ עבד‬in Neh 9:36–37 is used in a way analogous to the Old Persian term bandaka in the Bisitun inscription (DB). He does so in order to suggest that Nehemiah’s statement “See we are ‫ עבדים‬in our own land” should be read not as a lament for the state the Yehudim have fallen to, but as a proud declaration of loyalty to the Achaemenid rulers; that is, we are not “slaves” but “subjects” (Oeming 2006: 579). Oeming’s proposal raises interesting possibilities for understanding Nehemiah. In this part of my essay, I propose to do two things. First, I will examine further the Old Persian term bandaka and whether ‫ עבד‬is a plausible rendering of it into Hebrew. Second, I will analyze the instances of ‫ עבד‬in Haggai–Zechariah in order to see whether Oeming’s hypothesis for Nehemiah holds for those texts. Because Haggai–Zechariah 1–8 show definite interest in Darius I (for example, the date formulas used to mark the book), it seems reasonable to me to connect Oeming’s work on Nehemiah with these texts. This is part of a larger project on the relationship between Achaemenid imperial and administrative texts and the text-forms of Haggai and Zechariah. The Old Persian word bandaka, often translated as servant or subject, perhaps dependant (Wiesehofer 2001: 31), but not slave (Eilers and

296

Christine Mitchell

Herrenschmidt­1988), occurs only in the Bisitun inscription, in ten places: DB 1.19, 2.20, 2.30, 2.49–50, 2.82, 3.13, 3.31, 3.56, 3.85, 5.8. Only the first is in the plural: vašnā Auramazdāha manā bandakā āhatā, “by the desire of Ahuramazda they were my bandakas,” followed immediately by the phrase manā bājim abaratā, “they bore me tribute/taxes.” The phrase “they bore me tribute” is a common expression describing subject peoples, illustrated also by the iconography of the Persepolis reliefs. 7 In the other four occurrences in the imperial inscriptions (DPe 9–10; DNa 19; DSe 19; XPh 18) the “bearing tribute” phrase precedes the list of subject peoples, and does not imply anything other than the restoration of the created order by means of the subject peoples’ bringing of gifts to the king (Lincoln 2007: 75–76). The use of bandaka in conjunction with bearing tribute in DB 1.19, therefore, is an anomaly in the inscriptions. Further examination of bandaka in DB shows that the subsequent nine occurrences are in the singular and always qualified with manā, “my bandaka,” and always referring to one of Darius’s men who was given command of a force to conquer one of the rebels depicted in the inscription and the reliefs (Eilers and Herrenschmidt 1988). The followers of the rebels, the loyal Persian army of Darius’s father Hystaspes, and the six men named at the end of the inscription as Darius’s followers are all called anušiyā “loyal followers.” Anušiya may be close to bandaka in meaning (cf. Gnoli 1981 as cited in Briant 2002: 902), but it is not identical. Notably, it is used for the followers of the rebel kings, and so likely had a broader semantic range. The term bandaka has been the subject of some discussion among Iranists: because Greek texts rendered the term as doulos, earlier generation of Iranists construed it as having that semantic range of servant/slave, similar to the range of Hebrew ‫עבד‬. However, Pierre Briant (2002: 508) noted that Greek translations may have come through Aramaic; doulos might be a rendering of ‫עבד‬, not a rendering of the Old Persian bandaka. More recently scholars have suggested that bandaka has the connotation of “bondsman,” i.e. a relationship sworn by oath, based on both DB and the Middle Persian texts (Eilers & Herrenschmidt 1988). Certainly this latter meaning of “bondsman” is the one that Oeming takes and correlates with ‫ עבד‬in Nehemiah 9. The relationship is signified by the belt worn by all Persians, including the king; to grasp the belt was to abandon a 7.  The tribute procession relief at Persepolis has been thoroughly discussed by Root (1979: 262, 279–84), who concludes that it depicts an abstraction, not an actual event, and that it does not pertain to military conquest.

Achaemenid Persian Concepts Pertaining to Covenant

297

bandaka bond (Eilers and Herrenschmidt 1988, Briant 2002: 325). This relationship was personal, based on personal loyalty. There is a further body of evidence to consider: the Egyptian Aramaic texts, and the recently published fourth-century Bactrian Aramaic texts. In the translation of Bisitun (DB) found at Elephantine, there is one extant fragment corresponding to a bandaka passage in the Old Persian: the piece corresponding to DB 2.49–50. There bandaka is rendered by ‫( עלים‬TAD C2.1). 8 Further, while ‫ עבד‬is the more frequent term in the Egyptian Aramaic corpus, 9 the term ‫ עלים‬is used more than 30 times in the corpus, sometimes in contexts where it might reasonably be considered to be rendering the Old Persian bandaka. For example, in one of Arshama’s letters, he refers to ‫פסמשך שמה בר עחחפי עלימיא זילי‬, “Psamshek by name, son of Ahhapi, my ulem,” and goes on to refer to other individuals as ‫עבדי עחחפי‬, “slaves of Ahhapi” (TAD A6.3). In all of the correspondence, whenever ‫ עלים‬is used, it is used with the qualifier ‫זילי‬, “my” (TAD A.6.4, 6.11, 6.12), just as manā bandaka is used in DB. In the Bactrian Aramaic documents the same usage is found: the satrap Akhvamazda refers to ‫והיאתרו פקידא זי בדסתכני ווהומתי עלימ{י}א זילי‬, “Vahya-ātar, the officer in Dastakani-and-Vahumati, my ulem” (Naveh and Shaked 2012: A6). In Aramaic correspondence not directly pertaining to Persian officials, ‫עלים‬ seems to be closer in meaning to ‫( עבד‬e.g., TAD A3.5; Naveh and Shaked 2012: C3, C4), but the use of both ‫ עלים‬and ‫ עבד‬by Arshama in the same letter suggests that a distinction was being made. Finally, in the DB translation at Elephantine, in the fragment corresponding to DB 4:82, Darius’s six loyal followers, called anušiyā in Old Persian, are called in Aramaic ‫שגיא‬ ‫עמי‬, “much with me,” which is a literal translation of the Old Persian term. The Babylonian version of DB does not clarify the relationship between bandaka and ‫עבד‬. The Old Persian term bandaka, while rendered into Aramaic by ‫עלים‬, derived from the root ‫עלם‬, “to be strong,” is rendered into Akkadian as qallu, except for DB 1.19, where it is rendered as ardū, with qallu suggesting subordinates and ardū suggesting subjects (Eilers and Herrenschmidt 1988). This evidence suggests a different understanding of bandaka in DB 1.19 from the remaining instances in the inscription. The anomalous use of bandaka in DB 1.19 that I referred to above— subjects bearing tribute—is also the only use of the word in the plural in the text. It is in this anomalous instance to which the plural of ‫עבד‬ 8.  Porten and Yardeni (1986–89) will be cited as TAD. 9. The word ‫ עבד‬never appears in the Bactrian Aramaic documents; it appears that loan-words from Iranian languages are used to refer to servants/slaves (Naveh and Shaked 2012).

298

Christine Mitchell

in Neh 9:36 may be compared profitably to bandaka, thus deriving the connotation of “loyal subjects” as Oeming has done. Typically, DB uses the plural of anušiyā when referring to more than one loyal subject, and perhaps the plural forms of bandakā and anušiyā more closely correspond than do the singular (as Gnoli 1981 cited in Briant 2002: 902). In conclusion, only the Greek texts render the presumed term bandaka as doulos, with its connotations of subservience rather than loyalty. 10 Given the Orientalizing cast of the Hellenistic authors, this evidence should be used cautiously: there is a difference between those who participated in the system of bandaka and king and those who observed the system from the outside with their own perspectives on the system. While the Greekspeakers who observed the Persian court may have been in a colonized position themselves, it is their perspective that has become the dominant Western view, and by following it we “Other” the Persian court as a despotic and decadent Oriental place. Bandaka did not have the connotations of treaty: it was built on a personal relationship, and individuals entered into this relationship at various levels of society.

Bandaka and  ‫ עבד‬in Haggai–Zechariah Having discussed the function of bandaka and its translation, I return to Oeming’s argument about the term ‫ עבד‬and how ‫ עבד‬is used in Haggai and Zechariah. There are no instances of the word in Zechariah 9–14, and only four in Haggai and Zechariah 1–8: Hag 2:23; Zech 1:6, 2:13, 3.8. I shall deal with each of these in turn, comparing them to Neh 9:36 and to the Old Persian and Aramaic texts. It is only in the last verse of Haggai, in the final enigmatic oracle to Zerubbabel, that ‫ עבד‬appears: “On that day—oracle of Yhwh-Sebaoth—I will take you, O Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel, my ‫—עבד‬oracle of YhwhSebaoth—and I will set you as a signet ring, for you I have chosen [‫—]בחרתי‬oracle of Yhwh-Sebaoth.” In this utterance, heavily marked— three times—by the ‫( נאם יהוה‬oracle of Yhwh) formula, Zerubbabel is called “my ‫עבד‬.” It is the term ‫ עבד‬in the singular when used with the firstperson singular possessive that is similar to the use of manā bandaka, “my loyal subject” by Darius. While the origins of “my servant” as a reference to a person with special connection to the deity in Hebrew texts is obvious and well-known (e.g., Meyers and Meyers 1984: 68–69), we should not 10.  Briant (2002: 324–25) suggests that pistis would be a good rendering of bandaka. Because doulos was apparently used instead, the argument that the Greek evidence may not be the best choice for understanding the Persian concept is strengthened.

Achaemenid Persian Concepts Pertaining to Covenant

299

presume that those origins account for all the meaning of the word. It is possible that a typically Judahite ideology expressed in Hebrew could also be understood in a new time and context as having new and additional overtones. An old meaning does not preclude a new meaning! If we read ‫ עבדי‬as having resonances with manā bandaka, then there are new possibilities for reading the entire oracle. The notion that Yhwh has “chosen” (‫ )בחר‬Zerubbabel is very similar to a notion found in many if not most of the Old Persian inscriptions. 11 That is, it was by the vašnā of Ahuramazda that Darius and his descendants became king, where vašnā has the connotation “wish” or “desire,” that is, choice. Ahuramazda chose Darius to be king; the entire Bisitun inscription is a narrative depicting and justifying that choice. Similarly, Xerxes in XPf describes how Ahuramazda chose him to be king even though Darius had other sons who, one presumes, had an equally good if not better claim to the throne. The relationship between Darius and Ahuramazda is paramount in the inscriptions: the king is Ahuramazda’s agent on earth, chosen, we might say, as his bandaka: as Darius’s own belt symbolizes in the iconography. What then of the ‫חותם‬, the signet ring, that Zerubbabel is compared to? While Hag 2:23 picks up Jer 22:24 and reverses it, the term also has implications for a close relationship between Zerubbabel and Yhwh, perhaps like the one subsisting between Ahuramazda and Darius. Perhaps we might even compare the signet ring on Yhwh to the image of the winged disk with a male form in its center so prevalent in Achaemenid iconography: this image is usually taken by scholars to be Ahuramazda, although there continues to be debate on its exact meaning (cf. Lincoln 2012: 190). From the appearance of ‫ עבד‬in Haggai, I turn next to the final instance in Zechariah, in Zech 3:8, the other use of ‫ עבד‬in the singular. As in Hag 2:23, it is ‫עבדי‬, “my ‫”עבד‬: “For look, I am bringing my ‫ עבד‬Sprout.” Whether Sprout (‫ )צמח‬is identified or identifiable with Zerubbabel is not the issue here but rather that the speaking voice of Yhwh is using ‫עבד‬ with a first-person singular possessive suffix. Although the nature of the connection of the arrival of Sprout with Yhwh’s removal of guilt and the seven-eyed stone in v. 9 is unclear, the one seems to have something to do with the other. The seven-eyed stone might be read as having a connection with the seven men of DB (Darius and his six anušiyā—his six companionfollowers), and the ‫“( עון‬guilt”) of the land might be read as having a connection with the drauga, the Lie, in the land in DB 1.34. It is the Lie that 11.  Meyers and Meyers point out that ‫ בחר‬is a verb not used of any Davidide other than David (1984: 70); this is not exactly the case, as Solomon is described by David as having been chosen by Yhwh in 1 Chr 28:5.

300

Christine Mitchell

Darius and his six companions root out on behalf of Ahuramazda; perhaps the Sprout in Zech 3:8 may be read as analogous to Darius in DB. Working from Zech 3:8 back to the earlier two appearances of ‫ עבד‬in Zechariah, both Zech 1:6 and 2:13 use the word in the plural. Zech 1:6 reads, “Surely my words and my statutes which I commanded ‫ עבדי‬the prophets” has Yhwh as the speaking voice. The more interesting passage is Zech 2:13: “For look, I am stretching out my hand against them and they will be spoil to their ‫עבדים‬, so that you may know that Yhwh-Sebaoth has sent me.” The former oppressors will be the oppressed by their subjects. This instance of ‫ עבדים‬might be compared to the use of bandakā in the plural at DB 1.19. Although Meyers and Meyers assert that ‫ עבדים‬is not other than “slaves” in this instance (1984: 167), I think it could be read as “loyal subjects” here, but with irony. It is the undoing of the bond-making that the Persepolis reliefs depict, where tribute is brought by all the bandaka peoples to Darius; now Darius will be the tribute brought to Yehud. In summary, the analysis here supports Oeming’s proposal that ‫ עבד‬in Neh 9:36–37 be read as rendering the concept of bandaka, and opens up possibilities for reading in other biblical texts, which in turn reinforce Oeming’s proposal for Nehemiah 9. While bandaka in the Old Persian texts and ‫ עלים‬in the Arshama correspondence are always used by the superior in the bonded relationship, perhaps it was appropriate in Hebrew (or Aramaic) for the inferior to use ‫עבד‬. In that case, ‫ עבדים‬as used in Neh 9:36 would be consistent. Perhaps there was no really good word to render the Old Persian concept of bandaka into Hebrew, and so ‫עבד‬ was chosen, much as doulos was chosen by Greek-speakers. When ‫ עבד‬in Haggai-­Zechariah 1–8 is read as bandaka, a broader network of Achaemenid ideology around relationships with the Persian king may also be seen. It seems to me that most modern readers of Persian-period biblical texts read Yhwh and the Achaemenid king as counterparts. My brief examination of these texts from Haggai–Zechariah rather suggests that Zerubbabel/Semah and Darius are in an analogous position to Yhwh and Ahuramazda, respectively. That is, the text of Haggai–Zechariah knows the worldview of the Achaemenids and uses that worldview to make a point about Zerubbabel’s role in the world: Zerubbabel’s relationship to Yhwh is like Darius’s relationship to Ahuramazda. However, postcolonial theory has taught us that mimicry of the colonizer by the colonized can have either a “straight” or a subversive function. That is, the colonized can adopt the colonizer’s worldview or can parody it. From our distance, it is hard to see which mimicry function is at work in Haggai–Zechariah 1–8. Perhaps our Yehudite literati were adapting Achaemenid symbolism

Achaemenid Persian Concepts Pertaining to Covenant

301

and ideology to make their Yahwism “up-to-date” or contextual: it was not that Zerubbabel was Yhwh’s slave (or vassal), but he was Yhwh’s bondsman. Or perhaps our Yehudite literati were parodying and thereby subverting Achaemenid symbolism and ideology. In that case, Darius’s claims to be the one who works to restore divine order from chaos are overturned. The Persian concept of bandaka is fundamental to understanding how covenant might have functioned during the Achaemenid period. The bandaka-bond was a bond between individuals, freely entered into. The inferior in the relationship acted in the best interests of the superior; the superior chose the inferior based on personal loyalty. There was mutuality in the relationship, and a kind of intimacy: not all inferiors or subordinates were bandakas. It was a sacred relationship, but could be broken by the symbolic act of grasping the belt. While there is no explicit mention of “covenant” in Haggai–Zechariah 1–8, the use of ‫ עבד‬in the sense of bandaka does suggest an updating of the understanding of the concept.

Achaemenid Covenants and Malachi Unlike Haggai–Zechariah 1–8, Malachi uses plenty of explicitly covenantal language. The word ‫ ברית‬appears six times, and covenantal language such as ‫ אהב‬and ‫ שנא‬is used in the first disputation. 12 The covenantal theme of the book is clear right from the start. However, there may be more subtle indications about the nature of the covenant in Malachi. In this part of my essay, I turn to the well-known and difficult Mal 3:1, the appearance of the messenger of the covenant. Rather than tracing the roots of this unique formulation to Deuteronomy or Exodus, as is the usual interpretive move (Hill 1998: 265; Glazier-McDonald 1987: 128– 35), I will examine the text as it connects to the servant passages in Isaiah 42 and 49. While this may seem to be a strange and unhelpful move, I contend that the servant texts may help us to see how Malachi’s idea of covenant is particularly Persian, and more specifically, Malachi’s idea of covenant is a repudiation of Achaemenid forms of covenant. The discussion of bandaka in the previous part of the essay is crucial for this understanding of the servant passages in Isaiah and the relationship of Malachi’s messenger to these passages. 12.  With the majority of scholars, I read Malachi as a series of disputations. Cf. Hill (1998: 37) for references. This is not to say that there are only disputations in the book; in fact, one of the major pieces on covenant in the book is not in the disputation form, as I will discuss below.

302

Christine Mitchell

The author of Deutero-Isaiah may or may not have written before the Achaemenid takeover of the Persian throne by Darius, but regardless, the text appropriates Judahite royalist theology for Cyrus in the notion of Cyrus as anointed as described in Isa 45:1 (Blenkinsopp 2002: 210, 248– 50). By implication, Cyrus is thus associated with the servant of Yhwh in Isaiah 42, particularly as introduced in 42:1: “Behold, my ‫עבד‬, whom I am upholding, my chosen one in whom my being delights.” 13 This servant, especially as the chosen one, has strong resonances with the Achaemenid kings as the chosen of Ahuramazda (e.g., DB, XPh, etc.). The Achaemenid king brings order and law (arta and data) to the earth as the servant brings ‫ משפט‬to the nations in 42:1 and ‫ משפט‬to the ‫“( ארץ‬earth”) and ‫ תורה‬to the coastlands in 42:4. Scholars usually separate out 42:1–4 from the following verses as one of the so-called “Servant Songs.” But the description of Yhwh as creator God in 42:5 is followed by Yhwh’s call to the servant to become a covenant of the people and a light to the nations. These attributes of Yhwh as creator and chooser of covenant servant must be closely linked, and Blenkinsopp is correct to see the whole of 42:1–9 as a unity (2002: 211). Similarly, and significantly, the Old Persian inscriptions usually begin with the glorification of Ahuramazda as creator God before moving to Darius/Xerxes or others being chosen king. The NRSV and NJPSV coyly suggest that in the case of the phrase ‫ ואתנך לברית עם‬in 42:6, the meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain. But on the face of it, the ‫ עבד‬becomes the covenant. Cyrus— and by extension the Persian kings—is the covenant. No Achaemenid king would have been displeased by the notion that he has taken the place of the former treaties between Yehud and its deity. He would however, have been less pleased at 42:8: “I am Yhwh, that is my name, and my glory to another I shall not give,” which would seem to denigrate Ahuramazda, except that it is followed by, “nor my praise to idols,” which lets the mostly nonanthropomorphic Ahuramazda off the hook. Turning to Isaiah 49, the servant is now Israel (49:3), formed before birth. 14 This servant Israel is now the one who is set as the light to the nations (49:6), chosen by Yhwh (49:7) to be a covenant of people, ‫ברית עם‬ 13.  The LXX inserts “Jacob” in apposition to ‫עבדי‬, which explicitly rules out Cyrus as the ‫עבד‬. In a post-Achaemenid age there would have been no need to define the Persian king’s role in Yhwh’s plan of restoration. Or, the Persian king’s role was seen not as Yhwh’s servant or anointed but as one more oppressive king in a series (cf. Daniel 7). 14.  Blenkinsopp interprets Israel in Isa 49:3 as being a later insertion or gloss, even though it is attested in almost all of the Hebrew mss., and he argues that the text of 49:1–6 is still referring to Cyrus (2002: 299).

Achaemenid Persian Concepts Pertaining to Covenant

303

(49:8). Israel has become the covenant instead of Cyrus. This shift is very subtle, especially because the servant is referred to as an individual and not a corporate or collective being. But make no mistake, this is a subversive move. In an Achaemenid ideology in which the king is chosen by the deity to enact and maintain the cosmic paradise, if one of the subject peoples, bound to the king, were to play that role, it would express a dissatisfaction with the divinely sanctioned Achaemenid order. This would be seen by the Achaemenids as the introduction of the Lie into the land. Turning to Malachi, a good part of chap. 2 deals with covenant explicitly, culminating in the figure of the ‫ מלאך הברית‬in 3:1. The covenant itself is described by the speaker Yhwh in a number of ways. In 2:4, “my covenant with Levi” is actually ‫המצוה הזה‬, “this commandment.” In 2:5, “my covenant with him is ‫החיים והשלום‬, ‘alive and well,’” perhaps, rather than the more typical rendering of “life and peace.” The covenant is named again explicitly as the “covenant with Levi” in 2:8. In 2:10, it is “the covenant of our ancestors” or “our ancestral covenant,” marking the shift in perspective and speakers from Yhwh to the prophetic voice. This may mark a shift between a covenant with Levi and a broader covenant with Israel. Finally, in 2:14, “she” is “the wife of your covenant” or “your covenanted wife,” where covenant is used adjectivally rather than nominally. This adjectival use coincides with the introduction of the metaphor of marriage into the passage: it is part of a shift from saying what the covenant is to saying what the covenant is like; a shift from descriptive and analytical language to metaphoric and analogic language. I will deal with these two types of language in turn. Covenant, ‫ברית‬, is described as having form, essence, and history in this passage. In form, it is a commandment, ‫מצוה‬, not an agreement or something entered into by the Levites. It resembles the phrase used by the Achaemenid king in all the inscriptions in which he talks about the peoples over whom he rules: “My law they held. What was commanded of them by me, they did” (DB, etc.). Here “covenant” is not like the bandaka bond, but is like the law (data) of Darius. Yhwh uses the same kind of language about the Levites. While in texts such as Isaiah 40–48 and Haggai–­Zechariah 1–8 there is an intermediary figure, the ‫“( עבד‬servant,” or, bandaka?), between Yhwh and the people, in Mal 2:4–9 there is no intermediary figure like the Achaemenid king who is between Ahuramazda and the empire, instrumental in causing the empire to mirror the cosmic order. Perhaps, though, there is such a figure. Instead of the servant, there is Levi, the levitical priests, who are being exhorted to behave properly.

304

Christine Mitchell

While Mal 2:1–3 uses what we might call deuteronomic covenantal language and a treaty form of blessings and curses, with the shift in Mal 2:4 to covenant as commandment, a different form is used. Levi is the intermediary figure, a figure who shows reverence and is put in awe (‫ )נחת‬before Yhwh (2:5), just as the Persian king shows reverence and stands before Ahuramazda in the Achaemenid iconography, especially the seals. 15 Levi also has truthful teachings, has no corruption, guards knowledge (‫)דעת‬ and seeks instruction (‫ ;תורה‬2:6–7), summarized as being a ‫ מלאך‬of Yhwh. The essence of the covenant is life and peace, or in Old Persian terms, life and šiyāti: life and well-being, the creation of Ahuramazda. This is what is created by Ahuramazda and guarded by the Achaemenid king; the king guards it by promulgating law (data) and the proper order (arta). In Mal 2:4–9, it is reimagined as knowledge (‫ )דעת‬and instruction (‫ )תורה‬guarded by Levi. The servant of Isaiah 42, Haggai, and Zechariah 1–8 has become the levitical ‫ מאלך‬of Mal 2:4–9. Not a king, but a priest. The Levi-priest, however, has in the past introduced the Lie, as the Achaemenids would put it, or has caused many to stumble and corrupted the covenant, in Malachi’s terms. Mal 2:10–17 is attached to 2:1–9 by the catchword ‫ברית‬, but the shift in speaking voice and the move into a metaphorical register signals a shift in form from the descriptive proclamation back to the disputation form that has been used from the beginning of the book. In that way, 2:1–9 is an embedded genre within the Malachi disputation: 2:1–3 recalls the treaty form of covenant and 2:4–9 updates it to the Achaemenid form of covenant, which is no covenant at all. The disputations continue with the metaphor of marriage in 2:10–17. The figure described as the messenger of the covenant in Mal 3:1 is taken from the levitical covenant and the levitical messenger. He is the embodiment of the new kind of covenant that operates in Achaemenid ideology: the mediator between the deity and the people, whose role it is to impose cosmic order. The ‫ עבד‬of Isaiah 42, Cyrus the Persian king, is reinterpreted as the collective Israel in Isaiah 49. But the individual figure (rather than the collective) is reimagined as a messenger in Malachi 2–3. The pro-Persian rhetoric of Isaiah 42 has become subtly anti-Persian in Isaiah 49, and actively anti-Persian in Malachi, as the servant/messenger has moved from being Cyrus to Israel to Levi. The Levite has taken the place—or, should take the place—of the Persian king. 15.  Root argues that the representation of Darius and Ahuramazda on Darius’s tomb depicted a reciprocal or symbiotic relationship rather than the kind of reverence depicted in the forerunning Assyrian reliefs (1979: 179).

Achaemenid Persian Concepts Pertaining to Covenant

305

Conclusions Under the Achaemenids, there was no ideological purpose to treaties. In the rhetoric of the Great Kings, the entire earth was under their rule, thus obviating any need for treaties. The organizing principle of the empire was the bandaka relationship, or the bondsman relationship between individuals and the king, and between the king and Ahuramazda. During this period, this ideology came to be known widely, and taken into the terminology of many of the subject peoples. It is not surprising that the concept of covenant in biblical texts was reimagined in ways that aligned with Achaemenid ideology. The relationship becomes more personal, based on loyalty and reciprocity. Various figures (Zerubbabel; the messenger of Malachi) stand in the place of Darius as the mediating figure between the deity and creation. Law, or the upholding of it, becomes a key part of covenant, rather than treaty. While these trends may be extrapolated from earlier biblical texts, it would be unwise to ignore the broader social, cultural, political, and ideological contexts of the Achaemenids, under whose rule these texts were written.

Bibliography Blenkinsopp, J. 2002 Isaiah 40–55. Anchor Bible 19A. New York: Doubleday. Briant, P. 2002 From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire, trans. P. T. Daniels. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Eilers, W., and Herrenschmidt, C. 1988 Banda. Encyclopedia Iranica 3: 682–85. Fried, L. S. 2002 Cyrus the Messiah? The Historical Background to Isaiah 45:1. Harvard Theological Review 95: 373–93. Glazier-McDonald, B. 1987 Malachi: The Divine Messenger. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 98. Atlanta: Scholars. Gnoli, G. 1981 Antico-Persiano Anušya- e gli immortali di Erodoto. Pp. 266–80 in Monumentum Georg Morgenstierne I, ed. J. Duchesne-Guillemin and P. Lecoq. Acta Iranica 21. Leiden: Brill. Herrenschmidt, C. 1976 Désignation de l’empire et concepts politiques de Darius Ier d’après ses inscriptions en vieux perse. Studia Iranica 5: 33–65. 1977 Les créations d’Ahuramazda. Studia Iranica 6: 17–58. Hill, A. E. 1998 Malachi. Anchor Bible 25D. New York: Doubleday.

306

Christine Mitchell

Kent, R. G. 1953 Old Persian: Grammar, Texts, Lexicon. 2nd ed. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society. Kuhrt, A. 1983 The Cyrus Cylinder and Achaemenid Imperial Policy. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 25: 83–97. Lincoln, B. 2007 Religion, Empire and Torture: The Case of Achaemenian Persia, with a Postscript on Abu Ghraib. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 2012 “Happiness for Mankind”: Achaemenian Religion and the Imperial Project. Acta Iranica 53. Leuven: Peeters. Meyers, C., and Meyers, E. 1987 Haggai, Zechariah 1–8. Anchor Bible 25B. New York: Doubleday. Naveh, J., and Shaked, S. 2012 Aramaic Documents from Ancient Bactria from the Khalili Collections. London: Khalili Family Trust. Oeming, M. 2006 “See, We Are Serving Today” (Nehemiah 9:36): Nehemiah 9 as a Theological Interpretation of the Persian Period. Pp. 571–88 in Judah and the Judaeans in the Persian Period, ed. O. Lipschits and M. Oeming. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Porten, B., and Yardeni, A. 1986–99  Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt. Vols. 1–4. Jerusalem: Hebrew University / Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Root, M. C. 1979 The King and Kingship in Achaemenid Art: Essays on the Creation of an Iconography of Empire. Acta Iranica 19. Leiden: Brill. Schmitt, R. 2009 Die altpersischen Inschriften der Achaemeniden Wiesbaden: Reichert. Skjærvø, P. O. 2005 The Achaemenids and the Avesta. Pp. 52–84 in Birth of the Persian Empire: The Idea of Iran, ed. V. S. Curtis and S. Stewart. Vol. 1. London: I. B. Tauris. Skjærvø, P. O. 1999 Avestan Quotations in Old Persian? Literary Sources of the Old Persian Inscriptions. Irano-Judaica 4: 1–64. Wiesehofer, J. 2001 Ancient Persia from 550 BC to 650 AD., trans. A. Azodi. London: I. B. Tauris.

The Psalms, Covenant, and the Persian Period W. H. Bellinger Jr. Baylor University

This essay will explore dimensions of the understanding of covenant in the Persian period by looking at four poetic texts in the context of the Hebrew Psalter (Psalms 44, 74, 79, 89). The study is limited to texts that can plausibly be dated to the Persian period and that attend to perspectives on covenant in that setting. The texts relate in a variety of ways to the sixth-century fall of Jerusalem.

Places to Begin The question of dating the Psalms is classically difficult with a history of scholarship tied to methodological issues. Prior to the groundbreaking work of Hermann Gunkel, the Psalms were dated quite late in the history of the Hebrew Scriptures (Bellinger 2012: 15–17). While Gunkel birthed the modern study of the Psalms, he was also a person of his time and still understood the Psalms as influenced by the phenomenon of classical prophecy and as a part of a later imitation of an earlier cult. The exception for Gunkel (1967, 1998) was the preexilic royal psalms. It was Gunkel’s student Sigmund Mowinckel (2004) with his reconstruction of a powerfully generative preexilic Jerusalem cult who moved the dating of the Psalms to that earlier period. Form critics in the Gunkel-Mowinckel interpretive tradition came to the consensus view that psalms are to be dated from the preexilic era unless the text clearly requires a different conclusion. The current state of the issue has changed in Psalms study with increased attention to the sixth century and the Second Temple period and with considerable attention given to questions around the shaping of the Psalter as a whole. The trend today is toward dating a number of Psalms to the Second Temple period. The matter is complicated by the double-pronged nature of the question: When was the text produced, and when was its section of the Hebrew Psalter put together? The initial shaping of the Psalter was no earlier than the Persian period and perhaps even in the Hellenistic era. 1 These current trends have suggested a later dating of the Psalms. 1. See Wilson 1985, 2000: 102–10.

309

310

W. H. Bellinger Jr.

All of these issues, however, come back to the most basic matter of the porous poetic language of most of the Psalms. With this universal poetic language, scholars often find it difficult to date a psalm with much confidence. To illustrate, Kraus (1981: 501–2), in his form-critical commentary on the Psalms, indicates that perhaps the only psalm we can date with confidence is the notorious and powerful Psalm 137. The text (NRSV translation) begins with a grief-stricken account of a gathering of exiles in Babylon: By the rivers of Babylon— there [in a foreign land] we sat down and there we wept when we remembered Zion. (v. 1)

Kraus thus posits a date in sixth-century Babylon, but is that clear? Could this text not be a mournful memory of Babylon from the Persian era, after the Decree of Cyrus? I would suggest that with the continuing nature of the diaspora we do not really have the evidence to make that judgment with confidence. “There” could be a memory of what it was like “there” in the foreign land of Babylon or it could be the words of the community “there.” Remember that Kraus said this psalm is the one we can date with clarity. Some would find it rather ironic to include in a volume on the Persian period an essay on the Psalms. I, along with many interpreters of the Psalms, am often skeptical about the matter of assigning a date to a psalm. The purpose of these introductory remarks is to suggest that the psalms discussed in this essay likely come from the Babylonian or Persian period, but I am not attempting to be more specific. I think it unlikely that they came from the Hellenistic Period, but the shaping of the Psalter did likely continue in that time. Problems with dating the Psalms may also in part explain why other texts have been more prominent in discussions of the Persian period. With this lengthy disclaimer, we will consider several psalm texts. We will consider the psalms and tentatively imply a date; both covenant and history will come into the discussion. The selection of texts is but a sampling and I hope the choices will become clear as we move forward. 2

Laments Over the Destruction of Jerusalem The first set of psalms we will consider refer, in my judgment, to the fall of Jerusalem. I am here following the time-honored scholarly tradition of 2.  Please also note Carol Dempsey’s treatment in this volume of additional Psalms texts relating to covenant.

The Psalms, Covenant, and the Persian Period

311

seeking a social or cultural/historical context in which the texts’ content fits as an approach to the problematic question of date for the psalm. With the sixth-century fall of Zion came lament in the tradition of Jerusalem’s cult. These psalms could come from the Neo-Babylonian period or could well reflect prayer from the Persian period as early Judaism seeks to come to terms with its plight. 3 I take the language of lament psalms to be that of a covenant exchange. Covenant reveals Yhwh to be the God who comes to deliver, and in the laments the community of ancient Israel holds the deity accountable for that task or promise. Lament psalms are, if you will, the human side of the covenant dialogue, not often emphasized. These psalms are a particular example of that perspective, here from the community. I begin with Psalm 74, a psalm of Asaph near the beginning of Book III of the Psalter (Psalms 73–89). The psalm begins with a traditional opening plea as it complains about the destruction of Zion: O God, why do you cast us off forever? Why does your anger smoke against the sheep of your pasture? Remember your congregation, which you acquired long ago, which you redeemed to be the tribe of your heritage. Remember Mount Zion, where you came to dwell. Direct your steps to the perpetual ruins; the enemy has destroyed everything in the sanctuary. (vv. 1–3)

These opening lines suggest the setting of the sixth-century destruction of the Jerusalem temple. Verse 3 suggests that some time has passed, and so a date in the Persian period is certainly plausible. The temple is no more, and this opening complaint resonates with other exilic texts in that the issue of theodicy is at the forefront (Hossfeld and Zenger 2005: 243–44). The psalm then recounts in detailed fashion the desecration, destruction, and burning of the sanctuary (vv. 4–11): Your foes have roared within your holy place; they set up their emblems there. At the upper entrance they hacked the wooden trellis with axes. And then, with hatchets and hammers, they smashed all its carved work. They set your sanctuary on fire; they desecrated the dwelling place of your name, bringing it to the ground. 3.  See for example Carr 2011: 229–34, 240–41; Berquist 1995: 198–203.

312

W. H. Bellinger Jr.

They said to themselves, “We will utterly subdue them”; they burned all the meeting places of God in the land. (vv. 4–8)

The use of “meeting places” (‫ )מועד‬in v. 8 suggests that other places beyond the central sanctuary were in use and were destroyed when Jerusalem was destroyed. Perhaps these “meeting places” are the precursors to synagogues. The temple has been desecrated with the symbols of Babylonian power replacing the traditional symbols of Israel’s faith, and there is no divine word to make sense of these events or to speak of their end. Verses 10–11 especially appropriate the traditional language of individual laments in complaining that the covenant God who comes to deliver is absent; that divine power (“hand” in v. 11) is absent. The persuasive language of lament pervades the beginning of this poem. Verses 12–17 reflect a considerable shift in content; the conjunction (‫)ו‬ opening v. 12 carries an adversative force. This section, when taken separately, praises the deity as Creator and King. The section seems to reflect the Priestly creation tradition in Genesis 1 and offers majestic images of praise to the Creator. The function of these verses in Psalm 74 is to remind God of the divine sovereignty and kingship over creation. That is, God has the power and place to do something about the crisis at hand. Verses 18–19 add to the crescendo of images pleading with God to act because the impious Babylonians have desecrated the divine reputation among the peoples. Verse 19 interestingly refers to Israel as a dove, the sacrifice of the poor. The prophetic tradition includes references to sacrifice as an image of exile and judgment (Isa 34:6–7; Jer 46:10). The psalm ends with a straightforward plea: Do not deliver the soul of your dove to the wild animals; do not forget the life of your poor forever. Have regard for your covenant, for the dark places of the land are full of the haunts of violence. (vv. 19–20)

The plea is for “the poor and needy” (Israel) to be delivered from this severe crisis; the motivation centers on the impious scoffing of the national adversaries who have desecrated the sanctuary. The covenant here is most likely tied to the Sinaitic expression of covenant with an emphasis on the divine responsibility in that relationship (Broyles 1999: 309). The Sinaitic/Mosaic covenant tradition characterizes the deity as the one who comes to deliver, to initiate or to renew a relationship. The covenant promises of Yhwh and thus the covenant relationship between Yhwh and Israel are at the point of collapse, and so the plea is to save this life-giving

The Psalms, Covenant, and the Persian Period

313

relationship. The destruction of Jerusalem and the temple has ended the world as this community has known it, has ended the organization of the covenant relationship in this community’s life. The plea is for God to remember the covenant commitment and to bring to fruition the covenant promises. The emphasis is on the divine side of the covenant commitment, and the psalm candidly represents the human side of the covenant dialogue of faith in the liturgy responding to the sixth-century disaster. The community seeks to hold Yhwh accountable for the covenant commitments to the people to keep chaos, evil, and violence at bay. Yhwh can bring the “salvation” (v. 12) of the covenant relationship. Psalm 79 is in some ways a companion piece to Psalm 74 (Hossfeld and Zenger 2005: 305). It begins in a similar way and reflects a similar social setting: O God, the nations have come into your inheritance; they have defiled your holy temple; they have laid Jerusalem in ruins. They have given the bodies of your servants to the birds of the air for food, the flesh of your faithful to the wild animals of the earth. They have poured out their blood like water all around Jerusalem, and there was no one to bury them. We have become a taunt to our neighbors, mocked and derided by those around us. (vv. 1–4)

The images and language echo that of Psalm 74. In v. 5, the traditional language of the individual laments again appears in the form of questions put to the covenant God in this complaint in the face of the fall of Jerusalem. 4 This psalm also attends to the enemies who have brought this devastation as both the focus of the prayer and its motivation: For they have devoured Jacob and laid waste his habitation. (v. 7)

This prayer is somewhat different, however, in asking for divine forgiveness and does not use the term “covenant,” though the tradition is present in the concluding verse with the characterization of Israel as “we your people, the flock of your pasture.” The plea for forgiveness is put rather forcefully in vv. 8–9. The plea is for the deliverance of salvation, deliver4. Compare Ps 74:9–11. See also McCann (1996: 994), who characterizes Ps 79:4–5 as covenant language because the psalm appeals to the compassionate side of the covenant God.

314

W. H. Bellinger Jr.

ance from the devastation following the destruction of Jerusalem, asking that Yhwh “forgive our sins” and not remember against this generation “the iniquities of our ancestors.” The motivation for this petition is the avenging of the destruction upon the adversaries (v. 10). So while the plea is for forgiveness, it approaches a demand for that forgiveness in its force. The concluding petitions seek vengeance on those who taunt Israel, and the psalm concludes with a traditional vow of praise and thanksgiving to the God who delivers. The petitions in the latter part of the psalm make it clear that the covenant God who delivers is the one who can do something about this crisis in the aftermath of the destruction of Jerusalem. The issue shaping this prayer is the question of divine activity. Psalm 44, a Korahite psalm in Book II, presents more difficulties in specifying the crisis giving rise to the prayer (Broyles 1999: 201). Still, the psalm features a somewhat surprising emphasis on covenant and betrays connections with Psalms 74 and 79 so that a background related to the fall of Jerusalem in the sixth century is plausible. Psalm 44 also is a community lament following an individual lament at the opening of Book II of the Hebrew Psalter, a parallel to Psalm 74 as a community lament following an individual lament at the opening of Book III. Psalm 44 begins by rehearsing the faith tradition of Yhwh as the one who has delivered Israel in past history and the tradition of God as the king who brings victory. The “right hand” of Yhwh (v. 4[3]) is the power of the God who delivered Israel from Egyptian bondage and brought covenant to Israel. This God and king is the one who brings salvation. The tradition teaches that Yhwh is the God who comes to deliver. The contrast to present circumstances comes in v. 10[9]: Yet you have rejected us and abased us, and have not gone out with our armies. You made us turn back from the foe, and our enemies have gotten spoil. You have made us like sheep for slaughter, and have scattered us among the nations. You have sold your people for a trifle, demanding no high price for them. You have made us the taunt of our neighbors, the derision and scorn of those around us. You have made us a byword among the nations, a laughingstock among the peoples. (vv. 10–15[9–14])

The scattering of the people “among the nations” and the selling of the people (vv. 12–13[11–12]), along with the tradition of the taunting from

The Psalms, Covenant, and the Persian Period

315

the adversary nations (vv. 14–15[13–14]) tie the prayer to Psalms 74 and 79 (see v. 4) and support a connection to the destruction of Jerusalem in the sixth century. The taunting of the enemies is again emphasized in the prayer. Echoes of the curses in Deuteronomy 28 and the warnings of 1 Kgs 9:6–9 also tie the psalm to covenant traditions. The psalm’s language is certainly applicable to the destruction of Jerusalem. Not all interpreters would agree, but it is appropriate to see what this psalm can tell us about covenant and that could well apply to the Persian period. The tie to covenant becomes explicit in v. 18[17] and resonates with Ps 74:20: All this has come upon us, yet we have not forgotten you, or been false to your covenant. Our heart has not turned back, nor have our steps departed from your way, yet you have broken us in the haunt of jackals, and covered us with deep darkness. (vv. 18–20[17–19])

The psalm accuses God of bringing about the killing and destruction of the community, and that in the face of covenant faithfulness on the part of the community. Remembering God and the way of God and the covenant of God constitute faithfulness. That confession of faithfulness is specified further in v. 21[20] with the affirmation that the community has not forgotten God or prayed “to a strange god.” The affirmation of the psalm alludes to the first commandment of the Decalogue and thus to covenant keeping. The community has kept covenant. The reference is clearly to the Sinaitic covenant tradition. It appears that the covenant God is the one who has gone astray and so the psalm concludes with an intense plea for God to deliver. As with Psalms 74 and 79, the imperative and questioning language of vv. 24–25[23–24] appropriates traditional individual lament language as a way to plead with the covenant God to bring salvation to the community. The concluding verse refers to the divine ‫ חסד‬as the motivation for divine action. 5 In the context of the latter part of Psalm 44, the term here connotes the covenant love of the God who comes to deliver. 6 This prayer in intense language pleads with God to act as Israel’s faith tradition (vv. 2–9[1–8]) has taught generations of the faithful that God will act: God will come to deliver. That is God’s part in the covenant. This 5.  Also note in Ps 44:24[23], 27[26] the pleas for God to “rouse” and “rise up” echoing the “rise up” of Ps 74:22. 6.  Compare Num 14:19; Pss 6:5[4], 69:14[13], 85:8[7]. In Psalm 85, Yhwh’s “steadfast love” is used parallel to Yhwh’s salvation.

316

W. H. Bellinger Jr.

prayer represents the human side of the covenant dialogue and seeks to hold God responsible as the divine covenant partner. These psalms reflect a tradition that likely uses the Sinai covenant as a basis for the community’s blunt plea for Yhwh to deliver after the fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple. The voice of these psalms seems to understand covenant as a divine obligation to help Israel as the covenant partner. Yhwh has not kept covenant and needs to do that (Brueggemann 1997: 319–22, 436–38). 7 These community laments likely reflect the sixth-century destruction of Jerusalem and its temple and thus plaus­ ibly reflect notions of covenant early in the Persian period.

Psalm 89 The last psalm in Book III of the Psalter is a royal lament. The psalm announces its theme of ‫ חסד‬in the opening verses and then recounts the gift of the Davidic covenant as a manifestation of that ‫חסד‬: You said, “I have made a covenant with my chosen one, I have sworn to my servant David: ‘I will establish your descendants forever, and build your throne for all generations.’” (vv. 4–5[3–4])

This announcement of the promise to David and his descendants leads to the enthusiastic praise of God who is both Creator and King. “Righteousness and justice” as well as “steadfast love and faithfulness” (v. 15[14]) characterize the powerful reign of Yhwh. The Davidic king belongs to this Yhwh. Verse 20[19] moves to a more explicit and extensive recounting of the royal covenant given to David. The emphasis is on the promises to the king: He shall cry to me, ‘You are my Father, my God, and the Rock of my salvation!’ I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth. Forever I will keep my steadfast love for him, and my covenant with him will stand firm. (vv. 27–29[26–28])

Should Davidic descendants (vv. 33–34[33–33]) stray into disobedience, they will face the consequences, but the covenant promise will stand because of the divine ‫“( חסד ואמונה‬steadfast love and trustworthiness”): I will not violate my covenant, or alter the word that went forth from my lips. (v. 35[34]) 7.  Also see Judg 6:13, which articulates the question in the voice of Gideon.

The Psalms, Covenant, and the Persian Period

317

The emphasis is on the enduring quality of the Davidic covenant, with a variety of images to indicate this endurance; this covenant will endure like the sun, moon, and heavens, subjects of the sovereign creator. The specific term for covenant (‫ )ברית‬appears in vv. 4[3], 29[28], 35[34], and 40[39], often in connection with “steadfast love and faithfulness.” An important dimension of this covenant is the promise of the defeat of enemies, just as Yhwh defeats the powers of chaos (vv. 10[9], 11[10], 14[13], 18[17], 23[22], 24[23]; compare Pss 2, 74:12–17). This articulation of the Davidic covenant promise echoes its initial statement in 2 Samuel 7. 8 This lengthy section of the psalm characterizes the Davidic covenant as an enduring and trustworthy promise. Beginning with v. 39[38], however, the emphasis changes drastically and the psalm contradicts this lengthy covenant account: But now you have spurned and rejected him; you are full of wrath against your anointed. You have renounced the covenant with your servant; you have defiled his crown in the dust. (vv. 39–40[38–39])

Enemies are now in the ascendency, heaping scorn (v. 42[41]) and taunts on the Davidic king (vv. 51–52[50–51]). Verse 47[46], as we saw in the community laments discussed above, appropriates the traditional questioning language of the individual laments to press God in the midst of this crisis, a life-shattering manifestation of the deathly power of Sheol (v. 49[48]). The psalm ends with lamenting questions: Lord, where is your steadfast love of old, which by your faithfulness you swore to David? (v. 50[49])

The psalm concludes with the plea that Yhwh will remember the taunts of the adversaries spat on the Davidic king. 9 Hossfeld suggests that Psalm 89 comes after the rebuilding of the temple­and thus dates the psalm to the Persian period on the basis of its view of the king (Hossfeld and Zenger 2004: 405–6). The emphasis is not on the Sinaitic covenant tradition but the Davidic covenant tradition, perhaps in the hope of restoration of the kingdom; Psalm 132 may also reflect this sort of hope. We have seen that the covenant tradition referenced is the Davidic covenant. That tradition has two sides: divine empowerment 8.  Note especially 2 Sam 7:15, with its reference to ‫חסד‬. On the importance of Psalm 89, see Brueggemann 1999: 604–16. 9.  The question of the divine memory is also important in the community laments discussed above: Pss 74:2, 18, 22, 23; 79:8. The taunting of adversaries is also central to those texts and emphasized in the concluding petition of Psalm 74.

318

W. H. Bellinger Jr.

of the rule of the house of David and the call for faithfulness from the descendants of David (Hossfeld and Zenger 2004: 410–11). The emphasis in Psalm 89 is on “Yahweh’s obligation of reliable care” for the line of David (Hossfeld and Zenger 2004: 411). Recent history suggests that God has renounced this covenant promise and so the lament pleads for God to renew the divine ‫( חסד‬Hossfeld and Zenger 2004: 412). In this psalm, the covenant is the promise to David that he and his descendants will rule over the people in Jerusalem as God’s anointed. That promise is the basis for the questioning protest with which the psalm ends.

Implications Recent emphases on the shape of the Hebrew Psalter suggest that attention to the placement of psalms in the book can help interpreters. A first implication of our consideration of Psalms 44, 74, 79, and 89 con­ siders their literary setting in the book of Psalms as a whole. Three of the four psalms considered in this essay appear in Book III of the Hebrew Psalter. Psalm 73 introduces Book III with a profound prayer explicitly raising the theme of theodicy. That leads to the community lament of Psalm 74 that pleads with God to remember the covenant relationship with Israel, a prayer prompted by the sixth-century destruction of Jerusalem and its temple. Psalms 75 and 76 affirm the God who can bring justice, while Psalm 77 moves back to lament and a yearning for the divine salvation enjoyed in the community’s memory of the past. Psalm 78 further recounts history, but Psalm 79 brings the return of the destruction of Jerusalem. Tradition has taught that the God who is with Israel is the covenant God who comes to deliver, the one who can deliver. Psalms 73–83 comprise the collection titled the Psalms of Asaph. They plead for divine deliverance. Psalms 84–85 are Korahite psalms, as are Psalms 87– 88. With Psalm 88, the setting is one of deep darkness; this lament leads to the royal lament to conclude Book III, the cry that the divine promise to David has been renounced. The lament Psalm 86 is a Davidic prayer 10 in the midst of the conclusion of the book. It is a cry for a sign of divine favor, and in the context of Book III perhaps connotes the fervent needs of the Davidic line. The reigning understanding of the shape of the Hebrew Psalter is that Books IV and V constitute a response to the fall of the Davidic kingdom articulated at the end of Book III in Psalm 89 (Bellinger 2013: 147–60). Schmid has suggested that Books IV and V could well come from the 10.  See its superscription.

The Psalms, Covenant, and the Persian Period

319

Persian period as an affirmation of Cyrus and the Persian Empire (Schmid 2012: 146). Our discussion suggests along with McCann that perhaps the response to the crisis of exile has already begun in Book III of the Psalter: “Psalm 79 is one of several communal laments or prayers for help (see Psalms 74, 80, 83–85, 89) that give Book III the appearance of having been decisively shaped by the experience of exile” (McCann 1996: 994). Book III may also relate to the Persian period, a possibility Schmid notes (Schmid 2012: 153). The plea in these texts is for God to remember the covenant promises. The tone is more one of cry in the midst of trouble. A second implication comes more specifically to the understanding of covenant. The question of what in the language of the Hebrew Psalter connotes the notion of covenant is a large and complicated issue. In this brief discussion, I began with the appearance of the term ‫ ברית‬in Psalm 74 and included its companion Psalm 79. Psalm 44 provided another occurrence of the term in a text with connections to Psalms 74 and 79. The covenant in these community laments is the Mosaic covenant. In these laments over the destruction of Jerusalem, the covenant relationship between Yhwh and Israel becomes the basis for the insistent plea that Yhwh intervene in the resulting crisis. In Psalm 89, the ‫ ברית‬is the Davidic covenant promise that established the dynasty, and it becomes a basis for a similar plea. These references to covenant suggest exile and diaspora as setting. They suggest that God has failed to keep covenant obligations and seek to move to hope even in the midst of trauma. These texts do not follow the view of the Former and Latter Prophets generally that the exile comes from the community’s disobedience. The traditions of Sinaitic and Davidic covenants in these psalms see a way forward in exile and its aftermath in the complaint tradition of protest. Deut 26:16–19 reflects the two sides of the Mosaic covenant tradition in terms of obedience from the community and promise of blessing from Yhwh: “For him to set you high above all nations that he has made, in praise and in fame and in honor; and for you to be a people holy to the Lord your God, as he promised” (v. 19). The account of the Davidic covenant in the Nathan prophecy of 2 Samuel 7 and in Psalm 89 emphasizes the divine promise of the blessing and continuity of the dynasty. Divine support of the Davidic line will continue. Ps 132:12 gives greater emphasis to the necessity of covenant obedience from those in the Davidic line. The community laments over the fall of Jerusalem and the royal lament treated above (regarding Psalms 44, 74, 79, 89) all emphasize the divine promises in both the Mosaic and Davidic covenant traditions. These promises become the basis of powerful and fervent cries that Yhwh fulfill the covenant obligations undertaken in

320

W. H. Bellinger Jr.

these promises and do so urgently in the crisis initiated by the destruction of Davidic Jerusalem and its temple. Richard Bautch has argued that in the Persian period “features and dimensions of the Sinai covenant interact and fuse rather than separate and distinguish themselves” (Bautch 2009: 115). This sort of tendency seems to operate on a broader plain in the psalms we have considered. Both Sinai and Davidic covenant traditions are conceived in terms of the divine promises that undergird the covenant relationship with the community and its rulers. These divine obligations become the basis for intense petition. In the midst of crisis and diaspora, these prayers conceive of the community as still seeking fullness of life through relationship with the covenant God Yhwh and thus support community identity tied to covenant relationship with Yhwh. Covenant in these texts leans toward divine obligation, and divine obligation as the basis for petition. Divine obligation was implicit in preexilic Sinai and Davidic covenant traditions but is pushed to the fore in the aftermath of the traumatic fall of Jerusalem in the sixth century. The petitions seek a way forward for the covenant community by way of divine action, including forgiveness in Psalm 79. The community of Ezra and Nehemiah appropriated covenant in terms of the torah of the Sinai tradition as a means of renewing the community’s identity (Ezra 10:2; Neh 8:1–12; 10:30). Other Judeans remained in other lands. The poetic petitions of these laments articulate hope in ways that fit both the setting of those who returned to the land and the setting of those who remained in diverse lands. These psalms base the community’s identity in the exile and its aftermath in Yhwh’s covenant promises. It is also noteworthy that these texts appropriate imagery from the traditions of both creation and salvation history. Psalms 74 and 89 use creation imagery, and Psalm 44 recounts history as a basis for the petitions lodged near the conclusions of these prayers. The Persian period is a time in which various traditions are appropriated for the sake of community identity in the face of diaspora. These psalms attest to that dimension of the era. References to covenant in these texts suggest the liveliness of this theological tradition as the community seeks to rebuild its identity after the trauma of exile. Parts of the community emphasized history as a means of imagining a future in the land. Others pushed the covenant horizon to all of creation and the vision of a restored creation in the enduring kingdom of Yhwh.

The Psalms, Covenant, and the Persian Period

321

Bibliography Bautch, R. J. 2009 Glory and Power, Ritual and Relationship: The Sinai Covenant in the Postexilic Period. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 471. London: T. & T. Clark. Bellinger, W. H., Jr. 2012 Psalms: A Guide to Studying the Psalter. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. 2013 The Psalter as Theodicy Writ Large. Pp. 147–60 in Jewish and Christian Approaches to the Psalms: Conflict and Convergence, ed. S. Gillingham. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Berquist, J. L. 1995 Judaism in Persia’s Shadow: A Social and Historical Approach. Minneapolis: Fortress. Broyles, C. G. 1999 Psalms. New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Brueggemann, W. 1999 Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy. Minneapolis: Fortress. Carr, D. M. 2011 The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gunkel, H. 1967 The Psalms: A Form-Critical Introduction, trans. T. M. Horner. Facet Books Biblical Series 19. Philadelphia: Fortress. Gunkel, H., and Begrich, J. 1998 Introduction to the Psalms: The Genres of the Religious Lyric of Israel, trans. J. D. Nogalski. Mercer Library of Biblical Studies. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press. Hossfeld, F-L., and Zenger, E. 2004 Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51–100, trans. L. M. Maloney. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress. Kraus, H. J. 1989 Psalms 60–150: A Commentary, trans. H. C. Oswald. Minneapolis: Augsburg. McCann, Jr., J. C. 1996 The Book of Psalms: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections. Pp. 641–1280 in vol. 4 of The New Interpreter’s Bible, ed. L. E. Keck. 12 vols. Nashville: Abingdon. Mowinckel, S. 2004 The Psalms in Israel’s Worship, trans. D. R. Ap-Thomas. 2 vols. Biblical Resource Series. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Schmid, K. 2012 The Old Testament: A Literary History, trans. L. M. Maloney. Minneapolis: Fortress.

322

W. H. Bellinger Jr.

Wilson, G. H. 1985 The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 76. Chico, CA: Scholars Press. 2000 A First Century C.E. Date for the Closing of the Hebrew Psalter? Jewish Bible Quarterly 28: 102–10.

Poems, Prayers, and Promises The Psalms and Israel’s Three Covenants Carol J. Dempsey University of Portland

One of the hallmarks of Israel’s life together as a community and as God’s people is covenant. Covenant sustained and preserved relationships. When covenant was kept, life in the land flourished; when covenant was broken, life suffered. Throughout the Pentateuch and early books of the Prophets, one hears of several covenants that God made with the people of Israel, namely, the Noachic Covenant (Gen 9:1–17), the Abrahamic Covenant (Genesis 15 and 17), the Sinaitic Covenant (Exod 6:2–8; see also Exodus 24–25), and the Davidic Covenant (2 Sam 7:1–17), among others. Three covenants that play a role in the book of the Psalms are the Abrahamic Covenant, the Sinaitic Covenant, and the Davidic Covenant. This essay explores how Psalms 103, 105, 106, and 132 appeal to one or more of these three covenants in order to instruct and bolster the faith of various ancient and contemporary communities that continue to praise, to thank, and to seek Israel’s God—the God of many names, the Sacred Presence who dwells in the midst of all. In order to facilitate the discussion succinctly on these four psalms, Psalms 103, 105, 106, and 132 will be examined exegetically but with a focus on the theme of covenant. All of these psalms with the exception of Psalm 132 belong to Book IV of the Psalter. Psalm 132 belongs to Book V. Before beginning the discussion of these four psalms, a word concerning the dating of these texts is in order. In his essay “The Psalms, Covenant, and the Persian Period,” William H. Bellinger Jr. cogently lays out the difficulty in dating various psalms and the Psalter as a whole. 1 To date, no biblical scholar has produced convincing evidence that would locate any or all of the Psalms or the Psalter as a whole in preexilic, exilic, or postexilic times. Only hypotheses exist. Thus, with Hans-Joachim Kraus, I 1.  See William H. Bellinger Jr.’s essay “The Psalms, Covenant, and the Persian Period,” pp.  309–322 in this volume.

323

324

Carol J. Dempsey

accept that Psalm 103 is probably postexilic and written during the Persian­ period; Psalms 105 and 106 may be either exilic or postexilic; and although Psalm 132 is traditionally seen as late preexilic, it may very well be postexilic, which is the view held by Corrine L. Patton, Frank Lothar Hossfeld, and Eric Zenger. 2 Anything more definitive beyond these suggestions would only add to the plethora of hypotheses.

Psalm 103 Psalm 103 is a Song of Thanksgiving that can be divided into the following units: vv. 1–2, a self-exhortation to praise God; vv. 3–5, a listing of God’s beneficent deeds; vv. 6–14, a description of God’s graciousness; vv. 15–18, a comparison between human beings’ existence and the enduring love of God; and vv. 19–22, an exhortation for all who dwell on the earth and in the heavens to praise God. Of interest is the fact that only in v. 18 is the word covenant mentioned and yet, within the text many allusions to the exodus story and the Sinai Covenant can be found. In vv. 1–5, the psalm’s first unit, the psalmist is self-reflective and calls on him/herself not only to bless God but also to remember all God’s benefits: who forgives all your iniquity, who heals all your diseases, who redeems your life from the Pit, who crowns you with steadfast love and mercy, so that your youth is renewed like the eagle’s. (vv. 3–5) 3

Several of the images used in vv. 3–5 allude to and are first heard in the exodus story. God’s steadfast love is heard in Exod 15:13; 20:6; and 34:6– 7. The idea of God forgiving iniquity recalls Exod 34:6–7, where God’s 2.  For further discussion on the dating of Psalms 103, 105, 106, and 132, see H.-J. Kraus 2000: 290, 309, 317–18, 475–79. Kraus accepts the traditional view of Psalm 132 as late preexilic. C. L. Patton, however, argues that Psalm 132 is from the early postexilic phase of the restoration (see Patton 1995: 643–54). F. L. Hossfeld and E. Zenger also refute a preexilic dating for Psalm 132 and argue against Kraus’s hypothesis. For Hossfeld and Zenger (2011: 459), the psalm “more closely reflects the postexilic concept of the ‘Temple community.’” To be noted is that Psalms 105, 106, and 132 are quoted (at least in part) in Chronicles. 1 Chr 16:8–22 is drawn from Ps 105:1–15; 1 Chr 16:34–36 is drawn from Ps 106:1, 47–48; and 2 Chr 6:41–42 is drawn from Ps 132:8–10. If one places Chronicles in the late Persian or Hellenistic age, then this placement would affect the dating of the psalms in question. For the Chronicler to quote these psalms and display them prominently within his own work, they must have enjoyed some currency at the Jerusalem temple and be familiar to his audience in Jerusalem and Judah. 3.  All biblical references for this essay are taken from the NRSV.

The Psalms and Israel’s Three Covenants

325

mercy and graciousness are extolled. 4 In all these instances, God’s steadfast love is mentioned in relation to the mighty works done on behalf of the Israelites, whom God freed from Egyptian bondage (Exod 15:13) and in relation to covenant and the giving of the Law (Exod 20:6; 34:6–7). The reference to God’s satisfying the Israelites harkens back to the exchange that Moses has with his father-in-law Jethro in which Moses recounts all that God had done for Israel with respect to the Israelites’ liberation from Egyptian bondage (Exod 18:8–9). The reference to being satisfied with good is suggestive of the gift of lush land that God promised the Israelites (Exod 3:8, 17; 13:5; 20:24; 25:18–19, 23; 26:6), a land in which they did eventually settle. This reference also recalls how God fed the people manna for 40 years as they traveled through the desert en route to the promised land (Exodus 16). The image of the eagle as a bird of strength is first heard in Exod 19:4. Metaphorically, in the midst of the Israelites’ deliverance from oppression, God bore the people up on eagles’ wings and brought them to God’s self. Later, in Isa 40:31 eagles are used in association with the renewal of the Israelites’ strength. Finally, the notion of God as the one who heals the people is first heard in Exod 15:26. In vv. 6–14, the psalm’s second unit, the psalmist proclaims: The Lord works vindication and justice for all who are oppressed. He made known his ways to Moses, His acts to the people of Israel. (vv. 6–7)

These verses are a direct reference to the exodus story and the journey to Canaan that begins with the call and commission of Moses in Exodus 3 and ends with the death of Moses in Moab (Deuteronomy 34), at which time Joshua becomes Moses’ successor (Deut 34:9). In reflecting on v. 7, Artur Weiser adds this further insight: It is from this perspective that we must understand the reference to Ex. 33.13. In disclosing his intentions and his will to Moses and in granting to the Israelites by his deeds an insight into his way of acting, God has shown his “righteousness” to be a succession of gracious acts which run right through the whole history of Israel. 5

Along this same line of thought, Konrad Schaefer adds: The poet alludes to Exodus 33–34, where Moses asked for a manifestation of God’s “ways” (v. 7; cf. Exod 33:13), and quotes from God’s self-revelation to Moses after the Israelites had committed idolatry (v. 8; 4.  On Exod 34:6–7, see the essay of Thomas Hieke, pp.  75–89 in this volume. 5. See Weiser 1962: 661.

326

Carol J. Dempsey

see Exod 34:6–7). Moses received the guarantee that, despite Israel’s fickleness, God would accompany the people and ensure their future. 6

The psalmist’s continued reference to God’s steadfast love heard throughout vv. 6–14 and in the psalm’s third unit (vv. 15–18, specifically in v. 17) recalls Exod 34:6–7. Thus, Psalm 103 has many allusions to the exodus tradition, all of which come together in v. 18. Here, the psalmist makes a direct reference to the Sinaitic covenant 7 and the giving of the Law (see Exodus 34; see also Exod 6:7–9 and Exodus 19–20). Even though the reference to the Sinaitic covenant could be seen as the culminating point of the psalm, the entire psalm needs to be seen as an expression of covenant faithfulness and divine steadfast love made tangible through God’s great deeds to which the psalmist alludes throughout all of Psalm 103. As a psalm written in postexilic, Persian times, then, Psalm 103 functions on several levels. First, the psalm calls individuals, the community, and indeed all creation on earth and in the heavens to bless God for all God’s deeds. In blessing God, all are called to remember that the benefits enjoyed by all are because of God’s mighty deeds that flow from God’s steadfast love, a love that is everlasting. Second, in using a combination of present-, past-, and future-tense verbs coupled with allusions to past salvific experiences, the psalmist calls him/herself and all of creation to remember that the God of Israel who remained faithful to the community in the past will remain faithful to the community in its present days of restructuring itself after the exile, and will remain faithful to the community for all its future days as well. Third, the psalm offers a word of hope to a people who have just come through a traumatic experience: Israel’s God is ready to forgive, to heal, to comfort. Finally, the psalm offers a renewed lesson in covenantal love: God waits to be gracious to the people, but the people have to do their part: to keep covenant and to remember to do God’s commandments. Thus, Psalm 103, with its appeal to the Sinai Covenant and the exodus story, is an invitation to Israel’s people to deepen their own love with their God who has been with them in every step of their journey and will continue to do so as they resettle in the land.

Psalm 105 Psalm 105, a historical psalm presented in hymnic style, is composed of five units: vv. 1–6, an exhortation to praise; vv. 7–11, a testimony by the 6.  See K. Schaefer 2001: 255–56. 7.  For further discussion on the exodus tradition, events at Sinai, and the Sinai Covenant in relation to Psalm 103, see Goldingay 2008: 163–77.

The Psalms and Israel’s Three Covenants

327

community; vv. 12–22, a description of divine care during the patriarchal period; vv. 23–36, a description of divine care during the exodus from Egypt; and vv. 37–45, a description of divine care during the Israelites’ years of wandering in the desert. Psalm 105 features several themes that are similar to those heard in Psalm 103, especially covenant. Whereas Psalm 103 alluded to the exodus tradition and the Sinai Covenant, Psalm 105 makes reference to the Abrahamic Covenant, the patriarchal tradition, and the exodus tradition. In Ps 105:1–6, the first unit, the psalmist exhorts the community to give thanks to God for all of God’s wonderful works. The community is also called to remember these marvelous deeds. These two themes were heard earlier in Psalm 103. Verse 6 introduces into the psalm the three great patriarchs: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. These references set the stage for what follows in vv. 7–11, and allusion to the Abrahamic Covenant in vv. 10–11. Verses 7–11, the second unit, contain three references to covenant. In v. 8, the psalmist makes clear to his listeners that God is mindful of God’s covenant forever. The specific covenant to which the psalmist refers becomes evident in vv. 9–11: the covenant that he made with Abraham, his sworn promise to Isaac, which he confirmed to Jacob as a statute, to Israel as an everlasting covenant, saying, “To you I will give the land of Canaan as your portion for an inheritance.”

The Abrahamic covenant can be found in Genesis 15 (see also Genesis 17). The call of Abraham that led to the giving and ratification of this covenant appeared in Gen 12:1–9, where Abraham hears for the first time that he is to travel to the land that God will show to him, and that he will be blessed and will, in turn, be a blessing. Thus, the covenant made with Abraham, that was promised to Isaac, and that was confirmed to Jacob as a statute (vv. 9–10) 8 extends now to the Israelite community living either in exile or in postexilic times. Regardless of which time period, this allusion to the Abrahamic Covenant offers the people a word of hope especially because they are either landless or just returning to a small portion of the land after the complete demise of the Northern Kingdom, Israel, and the Southern Kingdom, Judah. Despite these hardships, the Israelites are heirs to the land (v. 11) 8.  Goldingay (2008:207) notes that in speaking about the covenant as a statute that God laid down, the psalmist underscores God’s commitment.

328

Carol J. Dempsey

according to God’s choice to be mindful of the covenant made (v. 8). This kind of mindfulness implies divine fidelity. Finally, the psalmist calls the Israelite community to remember God’s wonderful deeds (v. 5) while also reminding them that God is ever-mindful of the covenant made long ago, a covenant that will last forever (v. 8). In the third unit of Psalm 105 (vv. 12–22), the psalmist continues reminding the Israelite community about the trials and tribulations of their ancestors and how God protected them. Significant to this section of the psalm is a retelling of the Joseph story in vv. 16–22. Although the retelling is a very brief synopsis of the entire story (see Genesis 37–50), this recounting of history for the psalmist’s community again offers hope. Just as Israel’s God did not abandon the early descendants of the patriarchs in their time of need, in this case, Joseph the son of Jacob, so Israel’s God will not abandon the later descendants either. These later descendants would be the Israelites of the psalmist’s day. Furthermore, if suffering and oppression are to be endured for a time as in Joseph’s situation, then the end result will not be devastation or annihilation; it will be good fortune and liberation (vv. 20–22). By retelling the Joseph story, the psalmist is calling the people of his/ her day to remember their history and whence they have come. If God can raise up Joseph to help his family in time of need, then God can raise up another person to help the Israelites in their current time of need. If God can do marvelous things for Joseph, then how much more will God do for those Israelites listening to this psalm—these Israelites who are, themselves, descendants of Joseph. Verse 22 ends the reference to the patriarchal tradition and paves the way for the Exodus story that follows the story of the patriarchs (vv. 23– 36). After Joseph’s death (Gen 50:26), the next great figure to be raised up by God to assist the Israelites in their time of need is Moses (Exodus 3) and his brother Aaron (Exod 4:14, 27–31). In vv. 26–36, the psalmist recounts the story of the plagues that lead to the Israelites’ exodus from Egyptian bondage. These verses celebrate the mighty deeds that God did on behalf of the Israelites of old. Again, by recounting these events, the psalmist is offering a word of hope to the Israelites of his/her day and indirectly urges the community to remember what God has done for their ancestors when they were being made to suffer on account of oppression. These verses also remind the community about the power of Israel’s God who is not only Lord of creation but also Lord of history. God’s mighty deeds on behalf of the Israelites during the Egyptian bondage happened because of God’s mindfulness of the everlasting covenant made with Abra-

The Psalms and Israel’s Three Covenants

329

ham (vv. 8–11). The people will inherit the land, and they will be brought into the land. In the last unit, vv. 37–45, the psalmist recounts the last moments of the exodus from Egypt (vv. 37–38) and then moves into a description of a few significant events that occurred while the Israelites were wandering in the desert (vv. 39–41). Here the psalmist reminds his community that when their ancestors were hungry and thirsty, God provided for them. Why? For he remembered his holy promise, and Abraham, his servant. (v. 42)

With three short synthesizing verses (vv. 43–45), the psalmist closes this last unit of the psalm and also brings the psalm as a whole to its grand finale. Verse 43 alludes to Exodus 15, and a people living under divine promise have now had their promise fulfilled (v. 44). The psalmist makes clear to listeners that God has been exceptionally kind, caring, and gracious to the Israelites of old so that they might keep God’s statutes and observe God’s laws (v. 45a). The psalmist’s final word is both an exhortation to the community and a joyous exclamation: “Praise the Lord” (v. 45b). All of the images and references contained in Psalm 105 suggest that the psalm was written in either exilic or postexilic (Persian) times. For the Israelite community living in either time period, Psalm 105 has several functions. First, through the rehearsal of history, the psalm appeals to the memory of the community and calls them to remember all the marvelous deeds that God did on behalf of their ancestors which brought the present community listening to this psalm to the place where they are today, whether in exile waiting to return to their land or having just returned to the land after their time of exile. Second, the psalm reminds the exilic or postexilic community that God’s faithfulness has been constant. Just as God has cared for their ancestors, so God will care for the people in their new time of waiting or resettling. Third, the covenant that God made with the Israelites of old is still effective for all generations present and future. If the community being addressed is exilic, then the people are being reassured that they will once again have a rightful place in the land that is their inheritance for all time. If the community is postexilic, then the people are being reminded that the land on which they are now resettling is a gift—their inheritance— made possible through God’s beneficence and fidelity to covenant and the efforts of their ancestors, efforts that involved pain, suffering, risk-taking, and struggle.

330

Carol J. Dempsey

Fourth, for either an exilic or postexilic community, the people are reminded that, just as God raised up Joseph and Moses as leaders within the community when times were difficult (famine, oppression), so God will continue to raise up righteous leaders as the people move forward together on their journey, whether that journey be out of exile or toward a restructuring of community after the trauma of great loss and exile. Finally, the psalm calls the exilic or postexilic community to deeper fidelity, reminding them that God is the one who is the memory-keeper and the keeper of covenant. Israel, for its part, is called to keep God’s statutes and observe God’s law for the sole purpose of receiving continuous divine blessing (see Gen 26:2–5) and that it may go well for all the people in the land (see Lev 25:18–19; Deut 5:28–29, 33; 6:3, 17–18; 12:28). Thus, the psalm calls the people to a new and renewed sense of covenant and to a new obedience to God’s law.

Psalm 106 Psalm 106 is a hymn of praise that can be divided into the following units: vv. 1–3, a hymnic exclamation; vv. 4–5, a petition; v. 6, a confession; vv. 7–46, a rehearsal of Israel’s waywardness; v. 47, a plea; and v. 48, a statement of praise. A common theme between Psalm 103 and 106 is God’s steadfast love stated explicitly in both psalms (Ps 103: 4, 8, 11, 17; and 106:1, 45). The theme is implicit in Psalm 105. In Ps 106:1–3, the psalmist praises God for God’s steadfast love and through a rhetorical question, the psalmist makes clear that God’s mighty deeds are beyond all words and beyond all praise. With a beatitude, the psalmist then praises those who do justice and righteousness as a way of life. In vv. 4–5, the psalmist asks to be remembered and helped by God. In v. 6, the psalmist next acknowledges the sinfulness of the community. Present and past, 9 and then throughout vv. 7–46, the psalmist recounts all the wrongful deeds that Israel’s ancestors did, beginning with all that happened during the exodus, through to the people’s wanderings in the desert, which included the uprising against Moses and Aaron by some Levites, the construction of the golden calf, the rejection of the gift of land, among other deeds. The experience of God’s steadfast love and its association with covenant comes to the fore in vv. 43–46 where the psalmist states: Many times he delivered them, but they were rebellious in their purposes, 9.  E. S. Gerstenberger (2001: 239) notes that “the concept of sinning ‘together’ with the ancestors (v. 6a) is common in ancient Near Eastern genealogical thinking.”

The Psalms and Israel’s Three Covenants

331

and were brought low through their iniquity. Nevertheless he regarded their distress when he heard their cry. For their sake he remembered his covenant, and showed his compassion according to the abundance of his steadfast love. He caused them to be pitied by all who held them captive.

The covenant about which the psalmist is speaking in these verses refers to the Abrahamic covenant. Immediately before v. 45 is a direct allusion to the exodus story. God hears the cry of the Israelites and remembers the covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and because of the covenant God acts on the Israelites’ behalf (Exod 2:23–25). 10 In v. 47, the psalmist shifts the focus from past events to present time. God has acted on Israel’s behalf in past times, and now the psalmist asks God to act again on Israel’s behalf: Save us, O Lord our God, and gather us from among the nations, that we may give thanks to your holy name and glory in your praise. (v. 47)

Given this verse, one could argue that the psalm is exilic. Scholars, however, remain divided over the dating of this psalm. 11 Finally, the everlasting God of Israel had made an everlasting covenant with the people, a covenant that God remembers for all eternity. 10.  On the notion of “remembering the covenant,” Hossfeld and Zenger (2011:93) suggest that “‘Remembering the covenant’ is part of the Priestly covenant theology (cf. Gen 9:15–16; Exod 2:24; 6:5)—linked in both Exodus passages with Yhwh’s hearing the groans of the Israelites. The exact parallel is found in Lev 26:45.” They also note that v. 46 “follows, word for word, the late-Deuteronomistic petition in 1 Kgs 8:50b. The exilic situation presupposed there and here extends beyond the end of the historical books in 2 Kgs 25:27–30.” 11. On the dating of Psalm 106 in relation to v. 47, Weiser (1962: 682) argues that “It cannot conclusively be proved that here the whole people is thought to be in exile; the verse can just as well be understood to refer to a calamity that has come upon the people, for instance, after the destruction of the Northern Kingdom.” Goldingay (2008: 238) takes a different position: “The psalm belongs in that context when a return of sorts has happened, but one that by no means satisfies such a vision. The psalm exhorts Yhwh to fulfill that mission.” Gerstenberger (2001: 244) argues that the different elements of Psalm 106 fit into Israel’s communal worship service of postexilic times, when Scripture use was already at the center of the people’s assemblies. Thus, according to these arguments, Psalm 106 could be preexilic, exilic, or postexilic, a decision based on how one views the psalm’s content.

332

Carol J. Dempsey

For communities hearing this psalm, whether they are exilic or postexilic, Psalm 106, like Psalms 103 and 105, calls the people to remember the graciousness and compassion of their God who has entered into covenant with them. This God does and will remember, and had kept and will keep covenant with the people. The people, in turn, are called to act accordingly and live their lives in a way that bears witness to covenant fidelity. The word offered by the psalmist is a comforting word for a people who may be living in exile: God has not forgotten them and will act on their behalf just as God acted on behalf of the Israelites’ ancestors. He caused them to be pitied by all who held them captive (v. 46). This verse recounts the exodus experience but also anticipates freedom from exile by Persian King Cyrus. What God has done in the past, God will do again: release from captivity. If this text is postexilic, then the community is looking back on God’s past wondrous deeds, including freedom from exile, and praising and blessing God. This tone of praise and blessing is accomplished through the rehearsal of history that confesses God’s compassion for and fidelity to Israel down through the ages, inclusive of God’s covenant loyalty. The petition expressed in vv. 4–5 and v. 47, then, may be attributed to a leader or prominent member of the community who calls to Judahite peoples living in many different lands to remember God’s great deeds and God’s loyalty to covenant. Thus, these people are being exhorted to deepen their relationship with God and to embrace a life of right relationship with all, one that flows from God’s everlasting love for the people individually and collectively.

Psalm 132 Psalm 132 in Book V of the Psalter is part of the collection of “the Song of the Ascents” (Psalms 120–134). This psalm also has remembrance as its main theme. As a liturgical psalm, it celebrates the election of Zion, the everlasting covenant between God and David, and brings to mind the transfer of the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem. The psalm can be divided into two units: vv. 1–10, words of petition and vv. 11–18, descriptions of divine promises and covenant. The first of two petitions addressed to God (vv. 1–5 is the first petition; vv. 8–10 is the second petition) opens the psalm. The speaker represents the community 12 who calls on God to remember the hardships David en12.  For further discussion of the primary speaker of this psalm, see Hossfeld and Zenger 2011: 457.

The Psalms and Israel’s Three Covenants

333

dured and the vow David made that entailed establishing a dwelling place for the Mighty One of Jacob (vv. 1–5). Weiser (1962: 780) observes: The explicit mention of Yahweh by the name “Mighty One of Jacob” points to a merging of this tradition of the God of the patriarchs, which was originally the native tradition of the tribes of the future Northern Kingdom (cf. Gen. 49.24), with the Yahweh cult of the Ark of the Covenant at Jerusalem, a merger which it will hardly have been possible to accomplish without friction.

Thus, God and the members of the festival congregation hearing this account are called to remember, a theme prominent in Psalms 103, 105, and 106. The contents of vv. 1–5, and particularly vv. 3–5, are an imaginative and poetic version of events recorded in 2 Samuel 6–7. Goldingay (2008: 546) points out: As the declaration about David’s oath reflects an imaginative reworking of the OT story, so the content of it expresses symbolically the nature of the king’s commitment in a way that corresponds to other Middle Eastern literature.

The verses underscore David’s determination and call to mind the Ark of the Covenant dwelling in a tent which, for David, was an unsuitable dwelling place. David wanted the Ark of the Covenant to dwell in Jerusalem, which he later established as the capital city of Israel before the kingdom split in two (see 2 Samuel 5) and where he eventually brought the Ark. Verses 6–7 recount how the Ark, a portable altar and center of worship in the wilderness, had been left outside in the countryside at a place called Kiriath-jearim, which was 10 miles west of Jerusalem (see 1 Samuel 6:21– 7:1). Hossfeld and Zenger (2011: 461) note that these verses suggest that the Jerusalem temple is the result of both David’s initiative (vv. 1–5) and the people’s initiative (vv. 6–10). Verses 8–10 are the second petition that the community addresses to God: Rise up, O Lord, and go to your resting place, you and the ark of your might. Let your priests be clothed with righteousness, and let your faithful shout for joy. For your servant David’s sake do not turn away the face of your anointed one.

In v. 7 the community had decided to make its way to Jerusalem, the place that would be the resting place of the ark, and there the community would worship the God of Israel. Now in vv. 8–9, the community calls on God

334

Carol J. Dempsey

to get up and go to Jerusalem with the Ark and dwell there forever (v. 8). Thus, David’s dream would be realized: Jerusalem would be the dwelling place of God made manifest by the presence of the symbol of the Ark of the Covenant residing in the city. In v. 9, a request, the community calls for a festival celebration among the priests and the faithful. Hence, the focus now shifts from God to the cult. Hossfeld and Zenger (2011: 463) note that the two groups mentioned, namely, the “priest” and the “faithful” reflect “the postexilic liturgical distinction between ‘priest’ and ‘laity.’” The “faithful” refers to all of Israel. From the perspective of the speaker, vv. 8–9 presume a preexilic setting when Jerusalem (and later the temple) was being established. Verse 10 is another request: For your servant David’s sake do not turn away the face of your anointed one.

The identity of the “anointed one” is not stated. Most likely, the reference is to an existing king or priest. If the psalm is postexilic, then the anointed in this verse could refer to the community itself collectively as God’s anointed one, or the reference could be messianic because Israel’s monarchy has collapsed and the people wait in hope for a new king, one like David, once again to sit on a reestablished throne. If the psalm is late preexilic, then the reference could be to David himself, God’s anointed one (1 Sam 16:13) or to one of his descendants seated on the throne prior to the exile. 13 In either scenario, v. 10 provides a segue into the psalm’s second part, vv. 11–18. Verses 11–12 contain the high point of the entire psalm. These verses contain a promise that is tied to covenant. The verses speak of the Davidic Covenant, an everlasting covenant that God established with David (2 Sam 7:1–17). The oath that God swore to David guarantees the continuation of the monarchy and the Davidic lineage (v. 11). If David’s sons keep God’s covenant, then their sons will sit on David’s throne forevermore (v. 12). While the mention of covenant here refers to the Davidic Covenant, the verse is also indirectly suggestive, perhaps, of the New Covenant made with Jeremiah (Jer 31:31–34). In that covenant, God will write the law on the people’s hearts, and thus they will be taught by God (compare with Ps 132:12, where God will teach David’s heirs what needs to be learned with regard to God’s decrees). The Davidic dynasty and succession 13.  My own suggestion is that the “anointed one” refers to the community collectively after the promises made to David have been transferred to the nation as a whole. For further comment on this point, see Hossfeld and Zenger 2011: 463–64.

The Psalms and Israel’s Three Covenants

335

on the throne of Israel is tied to covenant fidelity as well as observance of God’s decrees. This addition of God’s decrees to the Davidic Covenant (not mentioned in 2 Samuel 7) now links this covenant with the Sinai Covenant. Hossfeld and Zenger (2011:475) make an astute observation: Whereas in 2 Samuel 7 the dynastic promise was not associated with any condition, here it is linked to the observation of the Sinai covenant by the “sons of David.” In this way, looking back, the end of this kingship, experienced in the sixth century, is explained as a consequence of infidelity to the covenant, but its “revival” is seen as possible, especially through the association, accomplished in Psalm 132, of the dynastic promise with Yhwh’s election of Zion, documented by David’s (!) transfer of the ark—and not with the building of Solomon’s Temple! Here the postexilic situation of the psalm is especially clear. 14

Finally, vv. 11–12 harken back to vv. 2–5. Taken together, these two verses show that the relationship between God and David was mutual. Both oaths are reciprocally related to each other and, in light of 2 Samuel 6–7, God’s oath in vv. 11–12 is God’s answer to David’s oath that the community quotes in vv. 2–5. The speaker in v. 13 is unnamed; one could assume that the voice continues to be the community’s voice (see vv. 11–12) that quotes God, the speaker in vv. 14–18. Verse 13 is a word of affirmation and also a summary of what has now transpired. The community makes clear that God has chosen Zion; God has desired Zion to be the divine dwelling place. The statement is a direct response to the community’s petition verbalized in v. 8. Verses 14–18 are a divine discourse. Now God states forthrightly the everlasting choice for Zion as the sacred resting place that will be lavishly blessed (vv. 14–15). Earlier, the community petitioned God to let the priest be clothed with righteousness, and the people to shout for joy (v. 9). Now God promises to do what the community has requested (v. 16). Having established Jerusalem/Zion and Israel within it, God next promises to put a king on the throne there (v. 17) which is also another direct response to the community’s other request heard in v. 10. Indeed, God will not turn away God’s face from God’s anointed one; God will not turn back on the covenant made with David (vv. 11–12). Hence, vv. 13–18 speak of the three promises: establishment of Jerusalem/Zion, the settling of the community in the city, and the setting up of 14.  Hossfeld and Zenger invoke a long held dichotomy. A later date is plausible but an argument could be made to the contrary. The biblical text carries much more nuance. For further discussion, see Knoppers 1996: 670–97; 1998: 91–118.

336

Carol J. Dempsey

the David monarchy in the city and the land. All of these things will happen because God remembers and keeps covenant (see Pss 105:8–10, 42; 106:45; 132: 11–12) and because God’s love is steadfast and everlasting (see Pss 103:8, 11, 17; 106:45). If Psalm 132 is to be dated to postexilic times, then this psalm functions as a word of assurance to the community that, in spite of their past idolatry, apostasy, failure at right relationship and the keeping of covenant and torah, among other transgressions, God has lived and will continue to live in their midst. Furthermore, when they doubt God’s fidelity, causing them to call on God to remember, to rise up, and to take other actions (vv. 1–10), they need to know that God does remember covenant, will keep it, and will do all that has been promised (vv. 11–18). The appeal to the Davidic Covenant (with the Sinaitic Covenant linked to it, and possibly overtures to the New Covenant made known to Jeremiah) is not to encourage the people as they begin to rebuild their temple, as Patton suggests. The appeal is also not meant to encourage the community as it reestablishes itself in the land and reestablishes Jerusalem/Zion as God’s resting place. Rather, the appeal is meant to serve as a memory for the community, reminding the community that everything that has already been established—covenant, law, and God’s presence among them—continues to be with them from of old and is continuing to unfold in their midst, with nothing ever having been revoked. The psalm then serves as a hymn of praise during the liturgy of the Jerusalem temple. God has chosen Zion—the city, the people—and God will reside with them forever (see vv. 13–18).

Concluding Comments Psalms 103, 105, 106, and 132 are rich in poetics and theology. Psalm 103 seems to be postexilic; Psalms 105 and 106 could be either exilic or postexilic; and Psalm 132 appears to be postexilic. Regardless of their dating, these four psalms appeal collectively to three of Israel’s most important covenants: the Abrahamic Covenant, the Sinaitic Covenant, and the Davidic Covenant. These three covenants became foundational to the development of Israel as a people and as a people living in relationship with their God. As poems reflective of either exilic or postexilic times, these four psalms call the people to remember their past and to be confident and comforted in their present reality, whether that be exile or dealing with the effects of trauma as they reestablish themselves in their land or elsewhere. The appeal to “covenant” becomes the blessed reminder that no matter where the people are or in what state or condition they find

The Psalms and Israel’s Three Covenants

337

themselves, God will remember even when they do not remember; God will be faithful, even when they are not faithful; God will rescue, heal, and deliver them despite their doubts. God will renew them even when bones are weary and everything is the picture of ruins and loss. God will provide what has been promised. We, the contemporary listeners and singers of these four psalms, have heard about the graciousness of Israel’s God. These four psalms are a reminder to us all that Israel’s God is not only the God of Israel but also the God of the Nations, and therefore we, too, regardless of our belief and state in life, share in the promises made to Israel down through the ages if only we, too, would remember. Such divine benevolence, such divine care and love invites everyone—past, present, and future—into a new, renewed, and deeper relationship with this wondrous Being whom Israel named “God.” Finally, these four psalms beckon us to proclaim the litany of praise with the palmist: “Bless the Lord, O my soul” (Ps 103:1); “O give thanks to the Lord” (Ps 105:1); “Praise the Lord!” (Ps 106:1), “for the Lord has chosen Zion” (Ps 132:13), has chosen all the peoples of the earth, and with everlasting love will remain faithful to everyone forever (Psalm 136).

Bibliography Gerstenberger, E. S. 2001 Psalms, Part 2 and Lamentations. Forms of Old Testament Literature 15. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Goldingay, J. 2008 Psalms, vol. 3: Psalms 90–15, ed. T. Longman III. Baker Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Hossfeld, F. L., and Zenger, E. 2011 Psalms 3, ed. K. Baltzer and trans. L. M. Maloney. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress. Knoppers, G. N. 1996 Ancient Near Eastern Royal Grants and the Davidic Covenant: A Parallel? Journal of the American Oriental Society 16: 670–97. 1998 David’s Relation to Moses: The Context, Content, and Conditions of the Davidic Promises. Pp. 91–118 in King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Papers from the Oxford Old Testament Seminar, ed. J. Day. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 270. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Kraus, H.-J. 2000 Psalms 60–150, trans. H. C. Oswald. Continental Commentaries. Minneapolis: Augsburg. Patton, C. L. 1995 Psalm 132: A Methodological Inquiry. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 57: 643–54.

338

Carol J. Dempsey

Schaefer, K. 2001 Psalms, ed. D. W. Cotter. Berit Olam: Studies in Hebrew Narrative and Poetry. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press. Weiser, A. 1962 Psalms. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster.

“When the Friendship of God Was upon My Tent” Covenant as Essential Background to Lament in the Wisdom Literature Jamie A. Grant Highland Theological College UHI

Introduction Perhaps the classic statement of the Wisdom Literature’s rejection of covenant came from Walther Zimmerli in his article “The Place and Limit of Wisdom in the Framework of Old Testament Theology.” As a starting point to his broader argument, Zimmerli (1964: 147) contends that, “Wisdom has no relation to the history between God and Israel. This is an astonishing fact.” And, were this notion sustainable, it would indeed be an astonishing fact. For such an extensive section of the OT/HB (Old Testament/Hebrew Bible) canon to reject what is, arguably, the central driver of the rest of that canon would be extraordinary. There is a very real sense in which the history of Israel’s relationship with Yhwh is the prelude, precursor and underpinning to all that we read in the OT/HB. So, if it truly does reject or ignore that history, then the WL (Wisdom Literature) is indeed unique within the canon. And, of course, pertinently for our current discussion, if there is no history between God and Israel then there is no revelation of Yhwh as a covenant God, nor can there be any expectation of this type of promissory relationship between God and “his” people. Zimmerli’s argument became somewhat axiomatic within studies of the WL for some time. For example, Roland Murphy (1992: 927) comments of the WL: “The most striking characteristic is the absence of elements generally considered to be typically Israelite: the promises to the patriarchs, the Exodus experience, the Sinai covenant, etc. . . . exceptions prove the rule: salvation history is absent from the realm of wisdom.” Elsewhere (Murphy 1978: 36) he comments on “the observable fact that WL is strangely silent about God’s interventions in Israel’s history (Exodus­, 339

340

Jamie A. Grant

covenant, cult etc.).” James Crenshaw (1998: 36), even more directly, argues that “the Sages . . . proclaimed a world-view that offered a viable alternative to the Yahwistic one.” Elsewhere (Day, Gordon, and Williamson 1995: 1), we read: “Since the wisdom texts paid little attention to cult and even less to covenant it was virtually inevitable that, as long as the quest (for a centre to OT Theology) persisted in this form, wisdom would be on the sidelines.” However, despite its axiomatic status, Zimmerli’s contention that WL neglects the main focuses of the OT/HB has come under serious question since the literary turn in biblical studies. During the era of the interpretative dominance of source-critical approaches, it was very easy to marginalize texts in the WL that seemed to point to a greater awareness of the OT’s classic loci as late additions and, therefore, of dubious value. 1 However, final form approaches to the text reinstate some of the indicators of covenantal awareness as legitimate aspects of wisdom thought. Arguably, the arch example of a connection between the Israelite wisdom tradition and covenantal theology is the prominence of the “fear of the Lord” theme in Proverbs. 2 However, it is my contention that covenant ideology underpins the WL in many ways, both subtle and transparent. One of the ways in which that relationship is evidenced is in the logic of lament in canonical Wisdom. The primary example of this thought process is to be found in the book of Job, an extended lament, where—although the language of covenant is not prominent—the concept is essential for the argument of the book to make any sense at all. This is an argument in four parts: 1.  Locating Job in the Persian period 2.  Discussing the difference between covenant as a theological construct and the historic covenants 3.  Examining the attitudes behind other ancient Near Eastern lament texts in order to analyse the key operative dynamics that come into play in this lament poetry 1.  The classic example of this tendency would be McKane’s (1970) threefold categorization of the Proverbs which demoted expressly religious proverbs to the status of “Class C” maxims. These were presented as late correctives to the “original,” largely observational and empirical, proverbs that somehow lay at the very heart of wisdom. 2.  The importance of this theme is emphasized by its use as an inclusio demarcating both the first section of the book (Prov 1:7 and 9:10) and the book as a whole (1:7 and 31:30). The “fear of the Lord” theme, therefore, acquires an obvious importance for textual approaches because the inclusio points to a hermeneutical key for understanding the text. In this way, relationship with the covenantal God becomes vital in any attempt to understand the wisdom of the sages in Proverbs, thus reuniting wisdom with the theme of covenant. See Bartholomew 2001 and van Leeuwen 1997 for further discussion.

Covenant as Essential Background to Lament

341

4.  Considering the importance of the question of relationship with God— and, by implication, covenant relationship with God—in the book of Job

Grounding Job in the Persian Period As I have written elsewhere (Grant 2010), establishing the historical provenance of poetic texts is extremely difficult and, apart from the broadest of terms, most poetic texts defy close contextual categorization. However, having said this, it does seem likely that the book of Job reached its final form within the Persian period. Dell (2003: 337), for example, comments that “the book of Job is generally dated between the sixth and the fourth century BC.” And there are many indications that would affirm this broad estimate. First, it seems appropriate to surmise that the writing/ editing activity of Israel’s sages reached prominence in the Persian period (Vargon 2001: 379). Second, given that the book of Job appears to be a response to a certain type of interpretation of Proverbs, one would have to allow for the completion of Job sometime after Proverbs was in wide circulation. 3 Third, other indicators—such as the preponderance of Aramaisms (Bartholomew and O’Dowd 2011: 128) and Dhrome’s (1967: clxix) observation of similarities to the texts of Zechariah and Malachi—all point to the likelihood that the book of Job reached its final form in the Persian period. 4 Gerstenberger (2011: 373) comments: For one, the work’s language with its Aramaisims, the motifs (e.g. the figure of Satan, the heavenly scenes), the wisdom-shaped speeches of God, the theological trend towards skepticism all point to pessimistic Babylonian wisdom and, for another, perhaps, to the Persian period as an initial piece of data.

So, while it is impossible date the book of Job definitively, it does seem reasonable to draw at least tentative conclusions on the basis of this text regarding the sages’ attitudes toward the concept of covenant in the Persian period.

Covenant as Theological Construct For this discussion to be valid as it unfolds, an important distinction must be made: covenant as a theological construct extends beyond the 3. I appreciate that a number of indeterminate questions come into play here, making this a difficult argument to sustain with a strong degree of certitude. However, Proverbs probably reached its final form in the Exilic or early Postexilic Period, meaning that the formulation of Job must have followed some time thereafter. See Goldsworthy 1995 for discussion of Job and Qohelet as a response to overly rigid interpretations of the worldview of Proverbs. 4. See Seow 2013 for further discussion.

342

Jamie A. Grant

historic covenants. Clearly, Yhwh has entered into covenants with his people in time and space. Taking the OT/HB narrative at face value, Noah, Abraham and the Patriarchs, Moses and Israel, and David and his line all entered into historic covenants with their God. Explicit reference to these (or other) historic covenants in the WL is marked largely by its absence. 5 However, questions arise regarding the significance of this omission. As mentioned above, it is often suggested that lack of the reference to the historic covenants implies that the sages were simply disinterested in the idea. The argument below, however, suggests that—far from being indifferent to the theme—covenant underpins many of the key discussions of the WL. This is not as paradoxical as it might seem because the concept of covenant, while encompassing the historic covenants, clearly goes beyond them. This is true to such an extent that Israel ultimately comes to view Yhwh as being by very nature a “covenant keeping God” (Deut 7:9)—covenant is essential to the very identity of Yhwh in relation to his people. To limit our consideration of covenant to the specific historic covenants significantly underplays the pervasive importance of the idea in the theology and worldview of ancient Israel. While the discussion of “centers” to Old Testament theology has (probably rightly) become somewhat passé, Eichrodt’s argument concerning the centrality of covenant to the theology of the OT/HB is undeniable (Eichrodt 1960). 6 Equally, the collocation of the language of covenant alongside other word groups that pervade the OT/HB (e.g., ‫חסד‬, ‫צדקה‬, ‫אמת‬, etc.) is another indication of the significance of the covenant concept in the mentality of the biblical authors. The ‫ חסד‬word group is particularly significant for the discussion that follows below. As McConville (1996: 752) points out, Steadfast love is the typical quality of the covenant relationship, a quality of God (Ps 136; Jer 9:24[23]), and required of his covenant partners (see Ps 50:5, where “my consecrated ones” who “made covenant with me” are ‫חסידי‬, a nom. related to ‫ ;חסד‬and, again Deut 7:9).

The expectation of ‫ חסד‬is, clearly, a two-way street. Just as Yhwh expected his people to show ‫חסד‬, so also Israelites would expect no less of Yhwh. It is this ideological expectation that drives the discussion that comes 5.  I have argued to this effect in another article that focuses on a similar theme (Grant 2003). Some scholars contend that the link between the WL and the historic covenants is mediated through Solomon; however, this link can—at best—be described as tangential. 6.  See also, for example, Snaith 1964 on the development of and the importance of the covenant theme in the OT/HB.

Covenant as Essential Background to Lament

343

to the fore in the theodicies of the WL. To that end, while the historic covenants may be absent from the WL, the concept of covenant is essential if the reader is to make sense of the theology and ideology of the sages.

The Ideology of Lament in the Ancient Near East The basis for Job’s extended lament is grounded in the accusation of covenant rejection by Yhwh and in the quest for renewed covenant relationship with God. Furthermore, it seems reasonable to contend that the significance of relational (covenantal) expectation as a backdrop to lament is an ideological premise that, if not unique to the Israelite wisdom tradition, is certainly unusual within lament ideology in the ancient Near East. In order to establish this contention, it seems appropriate to survey some examples of ancient oriental lament in order to examine the worldview and ideology prevalent in these accounts. Lament is an amorphous concept. Sometimes lament equates to no more than the poetic, hymnic or melodic expression of deep sorrow, regret or pain. This is true of the majority of the ancient Near Eastern lament corpus. Lament is an expression of loss and pain, rather than an expression of the type of complaint based on covenantal expectation that is more typical of Hebrew lament. This difference in dynamic, as we will see, is quite key to our argument. A few examples help to make the point. Man and His God One text that is frequently compared with Job in terms of content and tone is the Sumerian Man and His God (Kramer 1969: 589–92). Although a relatively short text and quite incomplete to us, the similarities revolve around the protagonist’s rejection by his god as evidenced in his affliction with a severe illness (lines 29–111); the concomitant rejection by his peers (lines 32–38); his longing for encounter with his god (lines 55–59); and deliberations on the topic of uprightness, sin, and retributive justice (lines 101–11). So there are certainly themes present that appear to be similar to those found in Job. However, the dynamic of lament is quite straightforward. According to one of the translators of this text (Kramer 1969: 589–91), “The main thesis of our poet is that in cases of suffering and adversity, no matter how seemingly unjustified, the victim has but one valid and effective recourse, and that is to continually glorify his god and keep wailing and lamenting before him until he turns a favourable ear to his prayers.” The essence of the lament is based on the premise that, if we pray/lament/wail long and loud enough, the gods might hear and relent. Essentially, lament revolves more around the hassle-factor than any

344

Jamie A. Grant

profound sense of expectation of justice (see Hartley 2008: 346–60, for fuller discussion). The differences when compared to Hebrew lament are clear. The sufferer does not present his god as being in control of all things (the demons of fate and illness act autonomously, although ultimately they were chased away by the god) and the supplicant makes no appeal to divine justice. While it is always good to exercise caution before developing an argument from silence, given the tone of the poem, this omission is telling. If the supplicant believed in a god of ordered relationship it would be logical for him to voice his appeal based on that sense of expectation. However, the sufferer does not do so, and this likely reflects the fact that the appellant had no expectation of “just” relationship with his deity. The gods could be fickle and their followers could suffer as a result of either divine neglect or caprice. 7 With that in mind, the active dynamic of lament in the Man and His God is relatively basic—pray long and hard and hope that your god finally hears and relents. The Babylonian Job Another ancient Near Eastern document (Pritchard 1969: 434–37; Hallo and Younger 1997: 486–92) that is frequently cited as a parallel text to the book of Job is the Akkadian Poem of the Righteous Sufferer (other­ wise known as The Babylonian Job or I Will Praise the Lord of Wisdom, from its opening line). 8 The primary association with Job revolves around the petitioner’s (Šubši-mešre-Šakkan) claims of innocence in the face of apparently retributive suffering that has been poured out on him by the god Marduk. However, the key differentiation from Job, unfortunately, seems to appear at a point where the text is incomplete. One reconstruction reads line 58 of tablet 3 as Šubši-mešre-Šakkan’s confession that he failed to revere the goddess properly (Gleb 1956: 170). Regardless of this disputed reconstruction, line 60 of the same tablet clearly states that “he [Marduk] caused the wind to carry away my trespasses.” So, the key difference between Job and his Babylonian equivalent is that the latter ultimately is not deemed innocent, merely ignorant of his transgressions (Bricker 2000: 205). Job clings to his awkward and angular claim of innocence right to the very end of the book. 9 Therefore, despite 7.  This is classically illustrated in the Babylonian cosmogony the Enuma Elish and is otherwise evidenced in many of the texts of the ancient Orient (see Walton 2007: 87–112). 8.  The opening line in Akkadian is Ludlul bēl nēmeqi. 9.  Of course, this raises the thorny issue of how Job 42:6 should be translated. It is not possible to deal with this question in detail here, but suffice it to say that—along

Covenant as Essential Background to Lament

345

their similarities, the attitudes and effects of their laments are quite different. These differences are further emphasised by contrasting views of the nature of the gods to whom the respective protagonists pray. We will discuss Job’s understanding of Yhwh below but even a superficial reading of the text of Job displays a strong expectation of divine justice and consistency (Hartley 2008: 349). However, Šubši-mešre-Šakkan sees Marduk as distant, removed, and generally disinterested in human affairs. There is no sense of relationship. The gods are unknowable, contrary, and likely to act out of jealousy and spite (lines 33–47). The aim of Šubši-mešre-Šakkan’s lament is simply the removal of suffering. The concept of reconciliation with the deity is both an irrelevance and an impossibility (Hartley 2008: 350–51). Before turning to the content of Job itself and returning more explicitly to the question of covenant in the WL, it seems appropriate to survey one more set of ancient Near Eastern texts to assess the content and worldview of its lament: namely, the Sumerian city laments. Normally compared to the biblical book of Lamentations, the six city laments discovered so far give some insight into both the dynamic of lament in the ancient Near East and the expectations of those offering their lament vis-à-vis the gods toward whom they are directed (see Ferris 2008: 410–13, for a succinct overview of the texts discovered to date). The Sumerian City Laments The two most significant laments in terms of size and completeness are the Lament over Ur and the Lament over Sumer and Ur (Pritchard 1969: 455–63; Hallo and Younger, 1997: 535–39; Pritchard, 1969: 611–19, respectively). One interesting dynamic of the city laments is that it is the local deity (Ningal) who laments the destruction of the city at the hands of the storm god, Enlil. A few key features seem relevant to our discussion. First, the rationale that lies behind the gods’ decision to destroy is often petty and insignificant. For example, we are told simply that Enlil ordered the destruction of Ur “in hate” (line 203). Or, in the Uruk Lament, the people of the city have become a nuisance to the gods, so they decree the city’s destruction (Ferris 2008: 411). In fact, Ferris (1992: 54) argues that “the arbitrary, capricious anger or wrath of the gods would be the logical with many commentators—I do not read this verse as a confession of moral guilt (see, for example, Janzen 1985: 254–59 or Newsom 1996: 628–29, for fuller discussion of the various readings of this verse). See also Ngwa 2005: 46–71 for a history of interpretation of the controversial Joban epilogue; many of these interpretations are shaped by the commentator’s reading of 42:6.

346

Jamie A. Grant

starting point for theoretical ordering” of the city laments. Common to the six city laments is a degree of pettiness, pique or spite in the activity of the gods. Second, the active dynamic of the lament is focused on the deflection of the gods’ wrath and the removal of suffering. As we have seen in the other Akkadian and Babylonian materials, the question of relationship with the gods is simply an irrelevance and it is for this reason that some scholars question the application of the term theodicy to these texts at all (Bricker 2000: 214). 10 For a lament to be described as a theodicy, there must be some clear underlying expectation of divine justice that needs to be affirmed in the light of the apparently contradictory evidence of suffering or evil. 11 However, what we have seen from the variety of ancient Near Eastern texts that we have examined is that—while we may also quibble about the reality of the concept of justice that comes into play—there is no inherent expectation of relationship with the gods. 12 Therefore, the purpose of lament becomes solely focused on the relief of affliction through constant petition, proper cultic practice or the intermediacy of priests, enchanters or lesser gods. To that end, it seems that the very dynamic of lament found in the book of Job (and elsewhere in the OT/HB wisdom tradition) is actually quite different from that found in response to suffering elsewhere in the ancient Near East. The key dynamic that sets the two apart is the concept of lament over the loss of relationship with the deity. Here is an area where we see the profound underlying effect of the concept of covenant in the OT/ HB Wisdom Literature.

Covenant Expectation in Job’s Lament From beginning to end of the book of Job, the expectation of divine justice is at the heart of the text and goes hand-in-hand with lament over the loss of divine, covenantal relationship. Clearly, Job’s suffering is central to the narrative, and the dialogue with the friends incorporates many of the classic philosophical discussions regarding theodicy. However, that 10.  See also see also Dobbs-Allsopp 1993 for further discussion of the ancient Near Eastern city laments. 11. The Oxford English Dictionary defines theodicy as “The, or a, vindication of the divine attributes, esp. justice and holiness, in respect to the existence of evil; a writing, doctrine, or theory intended to ‘justify the ways of God to men’,” (Online: http://www .oed.com/view/Entry/200356). 12.  Or, at least, the justice of the gods is so opaque as to be unknowable, therefore, their actions may be “just” in their own terms even although they appear to be unfounded in the eyes of the sufferer (see Walton 2007: 106–8).

Covenant as Essential Background to Lament

347

does not mean that the discussion is monochrome (Nicholson 1995: 71– 82). One of the motifs that is part of the spectrum of color that flows from the book’s dialogue is the question of Job’s relationship with God and vice versa. This theme is prominent throughout the whole book and, it is my contention, that we cannot fully or properly understand the book’s argument unless we give due consideration to the interpretive significance of the covenantal dynamic between Job and God. It seems reasonable to argue that Job has an expectation of covenant relationship with God and that one of the main reasons for his lament is that he believes God to have withdrawn from that relationship. In order to make the case for the underlying presence of the covenant theme in wisdom laments, we need to outline the centrality of the divine-human relationship in the book of Job. Fear, Blessing, and Curse in the Prologue The issue arises first in the prose prologue where ‫ השטן‬lays out his challenge regarding Job in relational terms. Of course, the prominence of this discussion in the prologue points toward the hermeneutical priority of the relationship theme. “Then Satan answered the Lord, ‘Does Job fear God for nothing?’” (Job 1:9, NRSV)

If we read the idea of the “fear of the Lord” in relational terms, as implied by Deut 10:12–13 and 14:23, 13 then Yahweh points out that Job is without peer in terms of his righteousness and his relationship with him (1:8), and the satan replies in the same terms. Is it “for nothing” that Job fears God (1:9)? The implication of the accuser’s question is clear: take away the trappings and benefits of wisdom and Job will turn from the fear of the Lord in a heartbeat. What is at stake is the very issue of relationship with God. 14 The whole dynamic of Job’s blessing/curse revolves around the idea of maintenance of relationship with Yhwh or the rejection of relationship with Yhwh. Implied in this dialogue is the assumption that 13.  Both of these texts are significant in terms of emphasising the relational nature of the “fear of the Lord” concept. If we read Deut 10:12–13 epexegetically, then the subsequent commands—walk, love, serve and observe—emphasize the strongly relational nature of the command to fear the Lord. Deut 14:23 adds to this equation by indicating that this should be the habitual practice of God’s people (see Ticciati 2005: 54, for discussion of how this links with the presentation of Job in the prologue). 14.  Ticciati (2005: 1) highlights 1:9, along with 1:1, as a “hermeneutical key” to the book of Job. “This is to shift the emphasis from what is most often seen as the burden of the book—the problem of evil or unjust suffering—to the problem of obedience, sanctification, or transformation of self.”

348

Jamie A. Grant

Job “fears” (relates to) God because of the benefits that he accrues from that relationship—remove the benefits and relationship will be lost, is the satan’s confident assertion. However, following the loss of the trappings of wisdom, Job opts to maintain relationship rather than to disaffiliate. So, from the privileged rhetorical perspective of the prologue, the reader is given insight into the crux interpretum: will Job turn aside from relationship with God or not (Pope 1973: 12)? This theme is continued, of course, in the personal affliction of Job in chap. 2, as Yhwh himself puts it, “without reason” (‫חנם‬, 2:3 15) where Job’s righteous response is called into question by his wife (“Do you still persist in your integrity? Curse God, and die!”[2:9]). Once again, the link between justice and relationship is maintained. The crux of the issue revolves around the question of whether Job will maintain or break relationship with God. This is the essence of the “curse” question: to keep relationship with God or not? As Walton points out (2012: 67) regarding Job 1:11: “The Challenger [‫ ]השטן‬is questioning God’s blueprint for divine-human relations.” 16 In summarizing the scene-setting of the prologue, Ticciati (2005: 61) comments: “As we will see, Job’s wrestling, in all its vehemence, continues to be a wrestling with the covenant—which Job never lets go or leaves behind.” The Friendship Question By Job 3:1 this key question of relationship is actually answered, and the cycles of speeches essentially revolve around the issue how Job is going to be able to maintain relationship with God. The focal question of Job’s relational response to God is decided by 3:1. All our anticipation revolves around the issue of whether or not Job will curse God and die. The curse, when it comes, is directed not toward God but toward the day of Job’s birth. After this point, the relational decision is made and the discussion in the speech cycles explores the supposition that God has somehow rejected Job. But throughout the narrative we see consistent expressions of Job’s desire to cling to relationship despite the fact that he appears to accept the friends’ suggestion that God has rejected him (see, for example, Job 15.  This term has the overtone of an action being performed on someone “undeservedly” (HALOT 3032). 16.  See also Ticciati 2005: 53–57, which compares Job’s experience to that of Abraham in the Akedah and highlights just how key the question of relationship with God in Job 1:9–10 (“prologue piety,” as Ticciati calls it) is to a proper understanding of the book as a whole.

Covenant as Essential Background to Lament

349

13:13–28 or 19:23–29). 17 Job’s complaint therefore focuses on the “why” question: for what reason has God chosen to turn his back on him? Ticciati (2005: 26) sums up Job’s post-prologue situation well: Indeed . . . the concern expressed in the Satan’s question is put to rest within the limits of the prologue. Job passes the test; no more need be said. He is capable of worshipping God in hardship; or, alternatively, he does not need the hope of reward to incite him to piety.

And she goes on to add (2005: 56): In the poem the question of whether Job will bless or curse God in response to affliction (cf. 1:11) is considerably complexified. This simple choice is no longer what is at stake. There is no question of Job’s letting go of God; the question is just how is he to hold on to him.

So, as we see, the relational—covenantal—question continues through the whole discourse. Job’s faithful response to God is established in the prologue and the question moves on in the speech cycles to consider how Job will maintain relationship with a God who appears to have turned against him. Job’s Defense Questions of divine justice and the divine-human relationship continue throughout the book. The apparent loss of divine relationship is the particular focus of Job’s defence in chaps. 29–31. As Job presents it in 29:1–6, it is the loss of God’s friendship that led directly to the descent from his previous good standing in society (29:7–25) to the current scenario in which he is rejected by society’s rejects (30:1–15). This in turn leads to Job’s defense of his moral standing in response to the assumption that his rejection by God is the result of moral failure on his part (Job 31). However, it is the loss of relationship with God that is presented as foundational to all that follows in Job 29:1–6. Surprisingly, most commentators are quite quick to pass over 29:1–6 as a mere prelude to the description of Job’s sense of loss regarding his public fall from grace in society. However, this pericope is essential to the argument that follows. Job’s high standing in society is the result of 17. These are two of the better-known examples of Job’s conflicted desire to maintain relationship with God. However, there are many other passages that point in the same direction despite the ambiguity of Job’s position before God. This desire to maintain relationship is indicated by Job’s persistent habit of addressing God directly throughout the speech cycles (e.g., Job 7:11–21 etc.). See Phillips 2008: 31–43 and Ngwa 2005: 102–10 for fuller consideration of the importance of Job as intercessor.

350

Jamie A. Grant

God’s protection (‫שמר‬, v. 2), light (‫אור‬, v. 3), and counsel (‫סוד‬, v. 4). 18 So, if Job’s societal position flows from the blessings that result from divine relationship, then the conclusion must follow that the loss of this standing comes from the removal of divine relationship. The heart of Job’s lament is seen in the formulations of 29:4–5—“When the friendship of God was upon my tent; When the Almighty was still with me” (‫בעוד שדי עמדי בסוד‬ ‫)אלוה עלי אהלי‬. These formulations reflect the perception of loss of covenant relationship. The essence of covenant in its patriarchal presentation simply revolves around the promise of God to be with the patriarch (cf. Gen 26:3, 24; 31:3; 48:21), and the implication of Job 29:4–5 is that the Almighty has withdrawn from that promissory relationship with Job. As Job sees it, the Almighty is no longer with him—that covenantal relationship has been removed. Wilson (2007: 313) sums it up well: The statement, when the Almighty was still with me, offers a glimpse into what Job considered to be his present state. His focus remains on the loss of relationship with God rather than on loss of possessions and wealth. Job is keenly aware of his feelings of abandonment by God. 19

Yhwh’s Response and Job’s Restoration Interestingly, when Yhwh speaks in chaps. 38–41 the issue of relationship does not arise at all. This should come as no surprise to readers who have the benefit of the prologue because we are given the privileged insight that Yhwh has at no point turned his back on Job. Job’s experiences were never the result of abandonment. In fact, if anything, they were the consequence of his good standing with the Creator. Yhwh’s response is limited to Job’s accusation that God’s control over his life is somehow flawed or nonexistent. The interrogative focus of each of the Yhwh speeches points to the basic idea that, as Creator, Yhwh’s design is always perfect even if it is beyond human comprehension. However, the relational question does not arise on Yhwh’s lips because it was never his issue. Job comes to this realization in his response to the Yhwh speeches in 42:1–6, where he describes his transformation in understanding, once again, in relational terms: “I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you” (Job 42:5, NRSV). This verse points to a seachange in Job’s relationship with Yhwh. Following the “events” of the book and the (perhaps theophanic) encounter with Yhwh in his speeches, Job has come—quite simply—to a better understanding of who God is 18. The modern English versions are justified in translating ‫ סוד‬as “friendship.” The term seems to imply the intimate counsel shared between friends (HALOT 6475). 19.  Emphasis mine.

Covenant as Essential Background to Lament

351

and, by implication, to a deeper relationship with him. Habel (1985: 582) is helpful here: Job’s response is a public declaration that he has not only heard God but “seen” him with his own eyes. Behind this declaration lies Job’s long search to find God (23:3) rather than wisdom and to present his suit before God’s face (13:24 cf. 23:9, 15, 17). Job’s hope was to see God with his own “eyes,” even if that meant a post-mortem miracle (see on 19:26–27). But Job “sees” God while he is still alive; Yhwh’s advent in the whirlwind is a revelation of his presence which anticipates the descent of his glory on Sinai. Job’s seeing is not some mystical sense of the divine, a fresh appreciation of God’s nature or a mediated discernment of his majesty in creation. . . . Rather, his “seeing” of Yahweh is personal and intimate. . . . That moment was as numinous for Job as the voice from the burning bush was for Moses (Ex. 3:1–6).

Finally, in this attempt to establish the centrality of covenant to Job’s lament, the restoration of Job, once again, is described in terms of relationship with God. As I have argued elsewhere (Grant 2011), the reinstatement of Job is not evidenced primarily in the (problematic) return of his wealth and family but rather in Yhwh’s appointment of him as intermediary on behalf of his friends. Without developing this argument in great detail here, the issue revolves around the translation of Job 42:7–8, where Yhwh rebukes the friends for not having spoken, traditionally, “about him” what is right, as Job did. The question at hand is grounded in the “speaking” referred to in these verses. In particular, we should note that the Hebrew simply combines ‫דבר‬ plus ‫ אל‬in these verses, a frequently occurring combination that is most commonly translated “speaking to” rather than “speaking about.” 20 The combination of ‫ דבר‬plus ‫ אל‬is used several times elsewhere in Job to refer to “speaking to” rather than “about.” 21 So, at the very least, there is an argument to be made for translating these verses as “you have not spoken to 20.  Of course, ‫ דבר‬plus ‫ אל‬can refer to “speaking about someone or something” as is clear from the HALOT entry for ‫( אל‬p. 491). However, so great is the preponderance of instances within the Hebrew Bible where ‫ דבר‬plus ‫ אל‬is translated as “speaking to,” that there should be compelling reasons before the idiom is translated as “speaking about.” Phillips points out that there are 435 instances of this idiom in the MT where the phrase clearly means “speaking to,” whereas there are only seven instances where the identical phrase must be translated as “speaking about.” We find a further 13 appearances where the best translation option is ambiguous, perhaps deliberately so (see Phillips 2008: 39). Kenneth Ngwa argues that this idiom in 42:7–8 is deliberately ambiguous and is designed to imply both talking to and about God (2005: 25). 21.  Job 2:13; 4:2; 5:8; 13:3; 42:9; etc. (see Ngwa 2005: 12).

352

Jamie A. Grant

me as is right, as your friend Job has.” This possibility is further underlined in the context of the epilogue because Job is then appointed as intercessor in 42:8, maintaining this intermediary role of one who speaks to God. Job alone has spoken to God in the speech cycles so he is called on to continue this speaking role in intercession on behalf of his friends. The relevance of this representation of Job in 42:7–8, of course, is that he is portrayed as the one who maintained—and sought to maintain—relationship with Yhwh rather than merely philosophizing about God. In speaking to God rather than about God—even though his prayer is voiced as vociferous complaint—Job makes the effort to cling to relationship with God because he knows that only in this relationship will he ever be able to make any sort of sense out of his experiences. Granted, Job’s prayer is redolent with errors of fact, false assumptions and a belligerent tone but it is prayer. Of all of the human protagonists in the book, Job is the only one to address God directly and this commitment to relationship is recognized by God in the epilogue. Once again, just as we saw at the beginning of the book, relationship with God remains the central issue right to the end. With this in mind, it seems fair to suggest that the book of Job is actually quite different in focus from the typical laments of the ancient world. The unique focus of Job is its rootedness in the concept of a covenantal relationship with God. The relational question is key to the interpretation of the text, therefore, this wisdom lament cannot be properly understood apart from an awareness of the concept of covenant.

Conclusion So, in conclusion, the Hebrew concept of lament, so prominent in wisdom texts, cannot be understood apart from its covenantal underpinnings. While the historic covenants are not an explicit focus of the WL, the concept of covenant is so deeply ingrained in the religious psyche of the sages that it constantly lurks just below the surface. The theme of relationship with God—which is, at its most basic level, the very essence of covenant— is properly basic to the book of Job. This arch wisdom book cannot be understood apart from awareness of the interpretative significance of the divine-human relationship. Therefore, it seems reasonable to suggest that any summation of the WL that seeks to exclude covenant from its pages is a misrepresentation of the ideology at work in these texts. On a prima facie level, it is very easy to conclude that the WL is not “about” covenant in the same way that, say, Deuteronomy is “about” covenant. However, if we are to be sensitive to the WL as literature, then we must acknowledge that covenant ideology is firmly “in play” in the books of the sages.

Covenant as Essential Background to Lament

353

Bibliography Bartholomew, C. G. 2001 Reading Proverbs with Integrity. Cambridge: Grove. Bartholomew, C. G., and R. O’Dowd 2011 Old Testament Wisdom Literature: A Theological Introduction. Nottingham: Apollos. Bricker, D. P. 2000 Innocent Suffering in Mesopotamia. Tyndale Bulletin 51: 193–214. Crenshaw, J. L. 1986 Story and Faith: A Guide to the Old Testament. New York: Macmillan. 1998 Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. Day, J.; Gordon, R. P.; and Williamson, H. G. M. 1995 Introduction. Pp. 1–13 in Wisdom in Ancient Israel, ed. J. Day, R. P. Gordon, and H. G. W. Williamson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dell, K. J. 2003 Job. Pp. 337–63 in Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible, ed. J. D. G. Dunn and J. W. Rogerson. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Dhrome, É. 1967 A Commentary on the Book of Job. Nashville: Thomas Nelson. Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W. 1993 Weep O Daughter of Zion: A Study of the City-Lament Genre in the Hebrew Bible. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Ferris, P. W. 1992 The Genre of Communal Lament in the Bible and the Ancient Near East. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 127. Chico, CA: Scholars Press. 2008 Lamentations 2: Ancient Near Eastern Background. Pp. 410–13 in IVP Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry and Writings, ed. T. Longman III and P. Enns. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity. Gelb, I. J., ed. 1956 The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Vol. 4. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gerstenberger, E. S. 2011 Israel in the Persian Period: The Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C.E. Biblical Encyclopedia. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Goldsworthy, G. 1995 Gospel and Wisdom: Israel’s Wisdom Literature in the Christian Life. Carlisle: Paternoster. Grant, J. A. 2010 Determining the Indeterminate: Issues in Interpreting the Psalms. Southeastern Theological Review 1/1: 3–14. 2011 The Hermeneutics of Humanity: Reflections on the Human Origin of the Laments. Pp. 182–202 in A God of Faithfulness: Essays in Honour of J. Gordon McConville on His 60th Birthday, ed. J. A. Grant, A. Lo, and G. J. Wenham. Library of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament 538. London: T. & T. Clark.

354

Jamie A. Grant

Habel, N. C. 1985 The Book of Job. Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. Hallo, W. W., and, Younger, K. L. 1997 The Context of Scripture, vol. 1: Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World. Leiden: Brill Hartley, J. E. 2008 Job 2: Ancient Near Eastern Background, Pp. 346–60 in IVP Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry and Writings, ed. T. Longman III and P. Enns. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity. Janzen, J. G. 1985 Job. Interpretation. Atlanta: Westminster John Knox. Kramer, S. N. 1969 “The Man and His God” A Sumerian Variation of the “Job” Motif. Pp. 589–91 in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, ed. J. B. Pritchard. Princeton: Princeton University Press. McConville, J. G. 1996 ‫ברית‬. Pp. 747–55 in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, ed. W. A. VanGemeren. Vol.1. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. McKane, W. 1970 Proverbs: A New Approach. OTL. London: SCM. Murphy, R. E. 1978 Wisdom—Theses and Hypotheses. Pp. 35–42 in Israelite Wisdom: Theological and Literary Essays in Honor of Samuel Terrien, ed. J. G. Gammie, W. A. Brueggemann, W. L. Humphreys and J. L. Ward. New York: Union Theological Seminary. 1992 Wisdom in the OT. Pp. 920–31 in vol. 4 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday. Newsom, C. A. 1996 The Book of Job: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections. Pp. 317– 637 in vol. 4 of New Interpreters Bible, ed. L. Keck et al. 12 vols. Nashville: Abingdon. Ngwa, K. N. 2005 The Hermeneutics of the “Happy” Ending in Job 42:7–17. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 354. Berlin: de Gruyter. Nicholson, E. W. 1995 The Limits of Theodicy as a Theme of the Book of Job. Pp. 71–82 in Wisdom in Ancient Israel: Essays in Honour of J. A. Emerton, ed. J. Day, R. P. Gordon and H. G. M. Williamson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Phillips, E. A. 2008 Speaking Truthfully: Job’s Friends and Job. Bulletin for Biblical Research 18: 31–43. Pope, M. H. 1973 Job: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 15. New York: Doubleday.

Covenant as Essential Background to Lament

355

Pritchard, J. B. 1969 Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Seow, C. L. 2013 Job 1–21: Interpretation and Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Ticciati, S. 2005 Job and the Disruption of Identity: Reading Job after Barth. London: T. & T. Clark. Van Leeuwen, R. C. 1997 The Book of Proverbs: Introduction, Commentary and Reflections. Pp. 17–264 in vol. 5.of The New Interpreter’s Bible, ed. L. Keck et al. 12 vols. Nashville: Abingdon. Vargon, S. 2001 The Date of Composition of the Book of Job in the Context of S. D. Luzzatto’s Attitude to Biblical Criticism. Jewish Quarterly Review 3: 377–94. Walton, J. H. 2007 Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible. Nottingham: Apollos. 2012 Job. NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Wilson, G. H. 2007 Job. New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Zimmerli, W. 1964 The Place and Limit of Wisdom in the Framework of the Old Testament Theology. Scottish Journal of Theology 17: 146–58.

Qohelet and the Covenant Some Preliminary Observations Thomas M. Bolin St. Norbert College

According to the Babylonian Talmud, rabbinic debate on the inspired nature of Qohelet was resolved in favor of the book’s canonical status because, despite the book’s seemingly unorthodox observations, it begins and ends “with the words of torah” (‫בדברי תורה‬, b. Šabb. 30b). The rabbis were referring to Qohelet’s opening remarks on human vanity (1:2) and to the colophon, which advises readers to fear God and keep the commandments (12:13). The question taken up in this essay is whether the re­mainder of this biblical book demonstrates any knowledge of the covenant. While this requires a bit more work than can be completely covered in the following pages, I will address some preliminary issues as well as point out areas for further investigation. There are two long-held scholarly positions that together have been used to deny any evidence of covenant thinking in Qohelet. The first is that the book is a theological outlier in the Hebrew Bible, even among its Wisdom Literature counterparts, themselves often seen as peripheral to the theological “center” of the Bible. It is in this vein that James Crenshaw has referred to Qohelet as “the odd book in” (1990: 28–33), while Elias Bickerman included it among four “strange” books in the canon (1985). Almost every scholarly discussion of Qohelet makes mention of its idiosyncracy (Sneed 2012: 1–11), ranging from the now classic work of von Rad (1972: 232), who described Qohelet’s author as “an outsider completely free of tradition,” to the more recent statement of David Carr (2011: 451) that “it is striking how little Qohelet is intertextually related to other parts of the Bible. . . [it] shows a remarkable lack of explicit awareness of Hebrew biblical texts.” The result is a rather sturdy wall that has separated Qohelet from the remainder of the Hebrew Bible. This scholarly commonplace is now being challenged. In two recent works (2011, 2012) Mark Sneed has demonstrated that the hard and fast distinction between the Wisdom Literature in general (and Qohelet in 357

358

Thomas M. Bolin

particular) and the other biblical books is a modern scholarly construct whose persistence owes itself to the ongoing confusion between literary genres and modes. The former are specific literary conventions that separate different kinds of texts, while the latter are descriptors that characterize not so much generic conventions as the use of themes or motifs. Biblical scholars, Sneed argues, have mistaken the didactic mode of the Wisdom Literature for a genre. He also points out that, given the relatively small size of the Israelite scribal class, it is implausible to think that anyone capable of writing a text such as Qohelet was ignorant of other texts that ended up in the Hebrew Bible (2011: 64; Bolin 2014). Following Jamie Grant (2003: 109), Sneed (2011: 69) notes that the claim that the Wisdom literature does not mention the covenant because it was not important to the sages is an argument from silence that can easily be reversed. In other words, one can also claim that, because the sages assumed the importance of the covenant, it did not need to be explicitly mentioned. Jennie Barbour (2012) makes a strong case for Qohelet’s knowledge and use of the historical traditions in the Bible, specifically those encompassing the entire history of the Israelite monarchy. Coming at the problem from the other direction, I have argued that the book of Jonah exhibits a theology similar to Qohelet, specifically in a view of a sovereign and inscrutable deity (Bolin 1997). The underlying question to the issue of Qohelet’s theology is the book’s relationship to the rest of the biblical corpus. What makes this an important issue is the fact that in the Postexilic Period, the covenant and wisdom become equated with a set of texts, and manner of life. In this regard, it is interesting that Qohelet does not appeal to any text as an authority. Indeed, in addition to advising his readers to avoid consulting other texts (Qoh 12:12), Qohelet bases the entirety of his accrued wisdom on personal observation and experience. Qohelet’s seeming aversion to texts as authoritative voices in theological and sapiential discourse calls to mind, mutatis mutandis, John Barton’s claim that Marcion should be viewed as a conservative reacting against the written encapsulation of the oral gospel (1997: 35–62). Perhaps Qohelet, in a similar manner, can be seen as a conservative who understands wisdom to be something acquired more from observation and experience than from a text and is reacting against the growing limitation of wisdom and theological authority to a written corpus. In this matter, I find it interesting that, while Qohelet is itself a written text, it is presented as though written by someone else who heard Qohelet. The oral arena of ancient education is well known, and if Qohelet did indeed have an aversion to written texts, or perhaps written

Qohelet and the Covenant

359

texts being given too much authority, he is similar in this regard to Plato’s negative view toward texts (Phaedr. 275d–76a). The second, related, position used to deny covenant thinking in Qohelet is that the idea of the covenant is foreign to the biblical Wisdom Literature because the ancient Israelite understanding of covenant is essentially connected to Israelite history. Close to half a century ago, Walter Zimmerli (1964) asserted that the covenant was grounded in Israel’s historical encounter with Yahweh and, because the Wisdom Literature exhibited no evidence of this connection between faith and history, there was no idea of the covenant in the sapiential writings. The faith of the Old Testament has its origin in the fundamental fact that God encountered Israel in the midst of history. . . . Wisdom has no relation to the history between God and Israel. (1964: 146–47)

Zimmerli was not the first to make these two claims, and they are both notably present in the two great German Old Testament theologies of Eichrodt and von Rad. In their wake, modern scholarship continued to link the biblical covenant almost exclusively with the narratives of Israelite history preserved in Genesis–2 Kings, and the prophetic texts associated with them. Given that the “great events” of Israelite history merit no mention in Proverbs, Job, or Qohelet, it has been argued that the notion of covenant is missing from the Israelite wisdom tradition. More recently, however, the view that the ancient Israelites understood the covenant as something exclusively embodied in the events of their past has been shown to be indebted to the legacy of 19th century biblical scholarship’s focus on historicism and the search for a people’s distinctive ethos. In addition, some scholarly attempts to articulate the idea of the covenant in ancient Israel have also been shown to have been unduly influenced both by the Christian theological understanding of the Israelite covenant as outmoded and in need of a renewal as well as by the overly negative portrayal of postexilic religion that goes back at least as far as Wellhausen (Oden 1987: 1–39; Brueggemann and Hankins 2013). These scholarly descriptions of the covenant in ancient Israel are compromised by a supersessionist view of biblical history and represent a revival of the adversos Iudaeos tradition in ancient Christian apologetics (Levenson 1993: 1–31). A particularly egregious example of this is George Mendenhall’s discussion of the covenant in Anchor Bible Dictionary: By the time of Nehemiah the evolution of the covenant . . . had run full course from the actual and constitutive foundation of a community to a theological concept to little more now than a ritual form and

360

Thomas M. Bolin

legal­document. . . . In some respects this transformation marks the end of “Israelite religion” (in all its complexities) and the rise of a distinctive and new religion called “Judaism.” (Mendenhall and Herion 1992: 1194; a more recent and extended example is Hahn 2009)

Indeed, the very idea of something understood as “Yahwistic religion” is in many ways a scholarly construct too often presumed rather than demonstrated, and which mistakenly understands ancient Israel as a personified collective. This kind of academic legerdemain does little more than hide the scholar’s faith commitments (Noll 2012). Despite the theological hay made out of the covenant by modern Christian exegetes, the covenant need not necessarily or exclusively have been understood in this way by the ancient Israelites themselves, although they would have seen the covenant as something that had been present in their own past. Covenant is ultimately about the divine-human relationship and not about the preservation of historical traditions. More recent work on the covenant shows other scholars arguing that the concept itself only dates from the very late Preexilic Period (Perlitt 1969; Kutsch 1973; Nicholson 1986; survey of the question in Hahn 2005). More recently still are newer investigations into the role of the covenant in the Persian period, a question to which this volume also contributes. Given the emphasis in Persian-period Yehud on the group identity of Israel, which continues well into the Hellenistic period, as is witnessed by the Samaritan schism and the Maccabean revolt, the Second Temple period may be rightfully viewed as a fertile time for the creation of new understandings of the covenant and its corresponding theology. The remainder of this essay lays out in a preliminary fashion two aspects of Qohelet’s thinking which may be profitably examined for evidence of his attitude toward the covenant. First, the role of creation in Qohelet and its prevalence in some post­ exilic thinking about the covenant are worth investigation. Richard Bautch (2009: 62–63) notes that passages in Second and Third Isaiah demonstrate a new, postexilic view of creation as a sign of the covenant, specifically by emphasizing the magnalia Dei of the Exodus as an affirmation of divine control over creation. The importance of creation in the Wisdom Literature, Qohelet included, has long been maintained by exegetes, most notably von Rad in his book on the Wisdom corpus (1972: 144–76), although von Rad didn’t really see creation as an arena for the covenant, given his and other scholars’ emphasis on the covenant as something to be understood exclusively in historical terms. For Qohelet, nature and its cycles are a given and serve to mark the passage of time and human life, as is seen in his description of those cycles in 1:4–7. This descrip-

Qohelet and the Covenant

361

tion shows that, for Qohelet, the created world has more in common with God than with humanity, for creation remains unchanged and eternal throughout the passing generations of humankind. Moreover, Qohelet also makes clear (11:3–6) that creation is also as equally inscrutable to human investigation as God is, and people no more understand the growth of vegetation than they do the deeds of God. Significantly, Qohelet seems to make no distinction in the world “under the sun” between the realm of human history and the realm of nature. Both are subject to the will of God, who takes from one person to give to another in as seemingly arbitrary a manner­as that with which the wind turns from blowing one way to another. In this collapsing of history and nature one might see in Qohelet something similar to, albeit with a distinctive twist, the connection between covenant and creation in Third Isaiah. For example, the stability of the cosmos affirmed by Qohelet in 1:4–7 (pace the eschatological reading of Ecclesiastes 12 in Seow 1997: 376–82) can be understood as a sign of the covenant in a manner analogous to the Noachide covenant in Genesis 9, which is founded on Yahweh’s promise in Gen 8:21 never again to destroy the world with a flood. Second, Qohelet’s understanding of the divine-human relationship offers­potential for revealing his thinking about the covenant. For Qohelet, and for all ancient Israelites, a covenant referred to the terms of the divine-human relationship in which offerings and honor were traded with the gods in return for favor and protection. The covenant with Yahweh is thus an example of the patron-client system of exchange that was the norm in ancient Levantine religious practice (Bolin 2004: 38–42). This is the same understanding at work in the so-called traditional Israelite wisdom that we find in Proverbs and the prologue to Job, both of which exhibit trust in the basic integrity of this system (Schultz 1997). This is also seen in the light that has been shed on the preexilic understanding of covenant by comparison of biblical texts with Iron Age suzerain treaties (Sparks 2005: 435–38). What the parallels between these Iron Age treaties and the pre-exilic Israelite covenant form show is that the divine-human relationship was modeled on, and in turn helped to shape, the relationship between kings and their subjects. To that end, an investigation into the parallels between Qohelet’s understanding of the divine-human relationship and Persian imperial ideology recommends itself as a potential means of articulating an idea of covenant in Qohelet (compare Bolin 2010). In his commentary on Qohelet, Seow (1997: 21–33) has pointed out how several aspects of Qohelet’s thought reflect the political and economic practices of the Persian period. While Seow makes a case for a Persian-

362

Thomas M. Bolin

period dating for Qohelet, the issue whether the book fits more into the Hellenistic period is still open. However, given that Alexander and his successors adopted and continued much of the practices of the Persian royal court, both Seow’s observations and my own that follow would also apply­ to Hellenistic-era Palestine. Specifically, Seow notes a parallel between Qohelet’s understanding of God and the practice of royal land grants in the Achaemenid Empire. Using Qoh 5:17–19 as an example, Seow notes that Qohelet “presents life’s possibilities in terms of such grants,” and that Qohelet’s use of the term ‫ חלק‬in describing divine-human relationship views human life as such a grant, a divine gift to humans within which they must toil for the sovereign who has given it to them. Qohelet refers to life as a portion given by God, and he says that human beings have been authorized to “take up” this portion that has been granted. In this view, life is like a portion that one receives as a grant from the divine sovereign. It is like a lot that is limited in time and space. In this lot the grantee toils, but it is also possible to enjoy the fruits of one’s toil from that lot. (1997: 24; compare Hengel 1974: 1.119–25 and Schwienhorst-Schönberger 2004: 70–82)

Finally, Seow notes, Qohelet also portrays God as a ruler similar to the Persian king, “who arbitrarily gives grants to favorite friends and courtiers, while others are left out” (1997: 25–26). Seow’s observation of these similarities can be expanded, and doing so shows a significant number of other commonalities between Qohelet’s portrayal of God and the practices and ideology surrounding the Persian king. First, it is important to note that Qohelet uses similar language to describe both divine and royal power. For example, Qohelet equates the authority of the king with that of God in 8:2–4, cautioning the reader not to disobey the king or be quick to swear oaths. In their language, these cautions are reminiscent of his advice in 5:1 against uttering rash words before God. More significantly, Qohelet’s claim in 8:4 that, “No one may say to him [the king] ‘What are you doing?’” (‫ )מי־יאמר לו מה־תעשׂה‬is identical to a description of God’s power in Job 9:12: “Who can say to him, ‘What are you doing?’” (‫מי־יאמר‬ ‫)אליו מה תעשׂה‬. Examination of specific practices of the Persian monarchs shows that Qohelet has described God as acting very much like the Great King. The power of the Persian king was displayed in both his astronomical wealth and conspicuous largesse to those in his favor. Most notably and frequently, the king’s favor was expressed in access to his daily table, and Greek texts abound with stories of the number of mouths fed daily at the Persian royal

Qohelet and the Covenant

363

board. It was a practice for the king to feast with his courtiers and guests while sitting behind a curtain that allowed the diners to be seen by the king while he himself remained unseen (Briant 2002: 307–15). Moreover, the exalted status of the Persian king was such that his relationship to his subjects was understood as reserving all privileges exclusively to himself. The king could give whatever to whomever he would, but conversely he was not bound to reciprocate any service or honor done to him. The king remained fully in control of the entire process . . . no one could demand a royal gift in return for services . . . the Great Kings’ polydōria was one of the constituent elements of their power, in the sense that the gifts or services received did not further commit the king, although the receipt of honors and royal gifts did oblige the recipient. (Briant 2002: 317–18)

In addition to Seow’s observations concerning royal grants, I think that Qohelet’s understanding of the divine-human relationship also reflects the Persian royal ideology described by Briant. First, the image of the all-seeing, but unseen, absolute ruler whose subjects eat and drink at his pleasure and under his watchful eye, parallels Qohelet’s constant refrain for humanity to eat and drink while they can, given that such things are no guarantee. I find it significant that every time Qohelet urges the reader to eat and drink, he mentions either divine generosity or approval (2:24–26; 3:13–14; 5:18–19; 8:15; 9:7). Second, Qohelet’s description of proper cultic behavior in 4:17–5:6 parallels the one-sided distribution of power and privilege seen in the practice of the Persian kings. For Qohelet, God is unmoved by cultic actions, but they are apparently still required. He does not advocate dispensing with sacrifices or vows but rather advises that they be performed unobtrusively and without any expectation of blessing. The rationale provided is the distance between the God who is “in the heavens” and people who live “on the earth.” Elsewhere (Bolin 2005), I have written that Qohelet describes the divine-­human relationship as one based on rivalry, in which humans desire the divine life that they cannot have and against which Qohelet advises a life lived on smaller terms, within constricting limits. On the one hand, the directive to live within the limits placed on humankind by the gods is nothing new to Qohelet; we see it in a number of texts dating back to the early 2nd millennium, and this advice is found in the Hebrew Bible outside the Wisdom literature. What is significant for Qohelet is the radically one-sided nature of this relationship and its limits. Here, we do not find the reciprocal and mutually reinforcing logic “I will be your God, and

364

Thomas M. Bolin

you will be my people.” Rather, as with the terms of the Great King’s rule, the divine-human relationship for Qohelet requires obligations on the part of people, while complete divine freedom and sovereignty are preserved. Consequently, Qohelet will acknowledge the obligation for offerings and prayers, but place these alongside the observation that the righteous do not always prosper (7:15; 9:2–3). I see no contradiction here but rather the necessary ramifications of the divine-human relationship as reconfigured along the lines of God holding all the cards. As both biblical and extrabiblical ancient Near Eastern texts note, in a strictly exchange or merit-based covenant, the weaker party is provided an opportunity to exert an undue influence on the stronger (Bolin 2004: 41–42; compare Rendtorff 1998). The move toward a one-sided covenant can be seen already in Ezek 16:59–63, where, in the establishment of the new covenant by Yahweh, Jerusalem will no longer have any purchase on God’s blessings on account of her shame. This is expressed in the stark language that the people of Jerusalem, in their dealings with Yahweh, “will never again open your mouth” (‫ ;לא יהיה לך עוד פתחון פה‬Ezek 16:63). This understanding is also present in Psalm 50 and Amos 5. In both texts, Yahweh eschews the offerings of the people and demands instead that they practice holiness and justice. For Qohelet, however, there is nothing that God desires or needs from us, although we may be still held responsible for our actions. This brief overview of the similarities between the rights and responsibilities of the Persian king and his subjects with Qohelet’s description of the divine-human relationship is a preliminary attempt to find an idea of covenant adapted to fit Persian-dominated realities. In the portrayal of a distant god who sees all, controls the lives of his subjects, and dispenses good mainly in the form of food and drink, Qohelet may be seen redefining the covenant with an eye to a diaspora God in a postexilic era. In this regard, it is interesting that this distant God is present in other postexilic authors, but with authoritative texts standing in for the divine presence (Assmann 2004: 29). Looked at in this way, making sense of Qohelet isn’t as much an issue of distinguishing the heterodox authorial voice from the orthodox voices of his opponents or redactors as of seeing in Qohelet evidence of a redefined orthodoxy for the new world of Persian-period politics and economics. This also offers a plausible explanation for the presence of so-called orthodox proverbs in Qohelet, (for example, 10:8–18, 11:5–6). Qohelet is not denying their teaching but limiting their validity given the very circumscribed arena he posits for human action. Nowhere is this more clear than 7:14–15, in which both good and evil are seen as the result of divine action in a world ruled completely by an omnipotent God.

Qohelet and the Covenant

365

Zimmerli makes a similar point in the same article in which he denies that there is any covenant thinking in the Wisdom Literature. Noting Qohelet’s emphasis on a radically free and sovereign deity, Zimmerli avers that here, at least, is “a genuine element of Israel’s faith” (1963: 157). This is due to the Lutheran Law-Gospel dichotomy that Zimmerli reads back into the Hebrew Bible and that leads him to confuse ancient Israelite religious beliefs with a Pauline polemic filtered through Reformation theology. Qohelet has confounded readers for centuries and, in the face of the book’s relentless dismantling of the various reasons offered for why humanity is here, frustrated readers have responded to the book with a similar question: “Why are you here, in the canon?” That question presupposes a depth of knowledge regarding Israelite religious thought and practice that we do not possess, and inverts the historical process. We do not sufficiently know the details surrounding the formation of the Bible to allow us to make Qohelet the “odd man in.” Rather, we are confronted with the fact of a canon that to our knowledge has always contained Qohelet, which means that those who compiled these books saw something fundamentally coherent in them all, Qohelet included. Our emphasis on Qohelet’s individuality, itself a modern viewpoint foreign to the ancient Levant, does more to reveal our own religious and historical assumptions than those of any ancient Israelite author.

Bibliography Assmann, J. 2004 Monotheism and Polytheism. Pp. 17–31 in Ancient Religions, ed. S. I. Johnston. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Barbour, J. 2012 The Story of Israel in the Book of Qohelet: Ecclesiastes as Cultural Memory. London: Oxford University Press. Barton, J. 1997 Holy Writings, Sacred Text: The Canon in Early Christianity. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. Bickerman, E. 1985 Four Strange Books of the Bible: Jonah, Daniel, Koheleth, Esther. New York: Schocken. Bolin, T. M. 1997 Freedom beyond Forgiveness: The Book of Jonah Re-examined. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 236. London: Continuum. 2004 The Role of Exchange in Ancient Mediterranean Religion and Its Implications for Reading Genesis 18–19. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 39: 37–56. 2005 Rivalry and Resignation: Girard on Qoheleth and the Divine-Human Relationship. Biblica 86: 245–59.

366

Thomas M. Bolin

2010 Jonah 4:11 and the Problem of Exegetical Anachronism. Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 24: 99–109. 2014 1–2 Samuel and Its Role in the Cultivation of Jewish Paideia in the Persian and Hellenistic Periods. Pp. 133–58 in Joshua–Kings as Emerging Authoritative Books: A Conversation, ed. D. V. Edelman. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Briant, P. 2002 From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Brueggemann, W., and Hankins, D. 2013 The Invention and Persistence of Wellhausen’s World. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 75: 15–31. Carr, D. 2011 The Formation of the Bible: A New Reconstruction. New York: Oxford. Crenshaw, J. L. 1990 Ecclesiastes: Odd Book In. Bible Review 31: 28–33. Grant, J. 2003 Wisdom and Covenant: Revisiting Zimmerli. European Journal of Theology 12: 103–11. Hahn, S. W. 2005 Covenant in the Old and New Testaments: Some Current Research (1994–2004). Currents in Biblical Research 3: 263–92. 2009 Kinship by Covenant: A Canonical Approach to the Fulfillment of God’s Saving Promises. Anchor Yale Bible Library. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Hengel, M. 1974 Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine During the Early Hellenistic Period. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress. Kutsch, E. 1973 Verheissung und Gesetz: Untersuchungen zum sogennanten Bund im Alten Testament. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 13. Berlin: de Gruyter. Levenson, J. 1993 The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, and Historical Criticism: Jews and Christians in Biblical Studies. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox. Mendenhall, G. E., and Herion, G. A. 1992 Covenant. Pp. 1179–1202 in vol. 1 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday. Noll, K. L. 2012 Inventing Yahwism: The Religion of Ancient Israelite Religion. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, Chicago, IL. Oden, R. A. 1987 The Bible without Theology. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Perdue, L. G. 1994 Wisdom and Creation: The Theology of the Wisdom Literature. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.

Qohelet and the Covenant

367

Perlitt, L. 1969 Bundestheologie im Alten Testament. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 36. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Rendtorff, R. 1995 Die Bundesformel. Stuttgart. Katholisches Biblewerk. ET: The Covenant Formula: An Exegetical and Theological Investigation, trans. M. Kohl. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998. Schwienhorst-Schönberger, L. 2004 Kohelet. Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament. Freiburg: Herder. Schultz, R. L. 1997 Unity or Diversity in Wisdom Theology? A Canonical and Covenantal Perspective. Tyndale Bulletin 48: 271–306. Seow, C. L. 1997 Ecclesiastes: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 18C. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Sneed, M. 2011 Is the “Wisdom Tradition” a Tradition? Catholic Biblical Quarterly 73: 50–71. 2012 The Politics of Pessimism in Ecclesiastes: A Social-Science Perspective. Ancient Israel and Its Literature 12. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Sparks, K. L. 2005 Ancient Texts for the Study of the Hebrew Bible: A Guide to the Background Literature. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Von Rad, G. 1972 Wisdom in Israel. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International. Zimmerli, W. 1963 Ort und Grenze der Weisheit im Rahmen der alttestamentlichen Theologie. Pp. 300–15 in Gottes Offenbarung: Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Alten Testament. Munich: Kaiser. ET: The Place and Limit of the Wisdom in the Framework of the Old Testament Theology. Scottish Journal of Theology 17 (1964):146–58.

Ezra 10:3: Solemn Oath? Renewed Covenant? New Covenant? Douglas J. E. Nykolaishen Ouachita Baptist University

In the continually burgeoning study of Yehud in the Persian period, among the areas that have received particular attention of late is the concept of covenant as it functioned within the Jewish community at that time. It is natural for the mixed-marriage episode of Ezra 9–10 to receive attention in this context, because the usual Hebrew word for covenant, ‫ברית‬, is used in Ezra 10:3. This study attempts to make a contribution to the discussion by attempting to understand the narrator’s perspective on this episode to the extent that it may be recovered from the primary data of the text itself. This is certainly a worthwhile endeavor in its own right. But I also hope that it will shed light on the thinking about covenant in Persian-period Yehud. It should be pointed out that the title of this essay purposely includes three question marks. This reflects the fact that the thoughts it contains are presented as provisional and designed to provoke further study, reflection, and discussion. The focus of this study will be to understand the meaning and implications of the phrase ‫ נכרת ברית‬in Ezra 10:3. As will be seen, there are at least three possible meanings that deserve consideration within the passage’s wider context. (1) It may be that the speaker, Shecaniah, is suggesting that the members of the community take a solemn oath among themselves to put away the foreign wives. Along with this, however, (2) it may be that he understands this action as tantamount to renewing the preexilic covenant with Yahweh. 1 Or again, (3) he may intend his proposal as the enactment of a new covenant between the community of the exiles and Yahweh. Author’s note: The “Covenant in the Persian Period” consultation at the SBL Annual Meetings has contributed significantly to this area of study. I wish to thank Richard Bautch for his vision and organizational leadership in this consultation and for extending the invitation to participate, and to thank him and Gary Knoppers for their helpful feedback on an earlier draft of this essay. 1.  Similar ambiguity, or, perhaps, intentional multivalence, with respect to possibilities 1 and 2 is present in the accounts of 2 Kgs 11:4–12, 23:1–3; 2 Chr 23:1–7, 34:29–33.

371

372

Douglas J. E. Nykolaishen

Solemn Oath? It is well known that the collocation of the verb ‫ כרת‬and the direct object ‫ ברית‬is used elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible for making a covenant between God and Abraham or his descendants. 2 The phrase does not, however, carry associations with divine covenants in every instance. In fact, it is used with roughly equal frequency in contexts where no divine being is intended to be party to the ‫ברית‬, other than as witness. 3 Thus, the phrase can be used to designate the action of two or more human beings entering into a binding agreement with each other. 4 In a similar way, because the phrase designates the act that initiates a binding agreement, and because the most important act initiating these agreements was characteristically swearing an oath (Kalluveettil 1982: 91), the phrase may be understood to refer to swearing an oath. This may be an effective way to translate the phrase, because it helps to avoid the implication that a divinehuman agreement is intended, an association often made in the minds of English speakers with the word covenant. Although oaths and covenants are conceptually distinct, they were closely associated in Biblical Hebrew. Weinfeld (1975: 256) observed that the terms that designated them were used interchangeably to express the idea of a contract or treaty. 5 It is possible, then, to translate the phrase in Ezra 10:3 as “let us swear an oath,” and understand it as referring to an agreement among people, rather than a covenant with God. 6 This seems to have been the interpretation of the translator of 1 Esdras. Although the LXX translates the phrase at Ezra 10:3 with its standard rendering (διαθώμεθα διαθήκην), the parallel passage at 1 Esdr 8:90[93] uses the phrase γενέσθω ἡμῖν ὁρκωμοσία ‘let us take an oath’. This phrase is found only here in the LXX, and the noun ὁρκωμοσία elsewhere only at Ezek 17:18–19. It is unnecessary to suppose that the translator of 1 Esdras 2.  By my count, 38 times, although some instances, including Josh 24:25 and 2 Kgs 23:3, could be debated. 3.  39 times. 4.  Hugenberger (1998: 173) says that one sense of ‫ ברית‬is “that of a shared commitment to a stipulated course of action, established under divine sanction.” 5. E.g., Deut 29:11[12]: ‫לעברך  בברית  יהוה  אלהיך ובאלתו אשר יהוה אלהיך‬ ‫‘ כרת  עמך  היום‬so that you may pass into the covenant of Yahweh your god and into his oath, which Yahweh your god is cutting with you today’. Linington (2002: 709–10) points out that covenants and oaths could be equated throughout the ancient Near East. 6.  Of course, even if understood in this way, it is clear that the terms of something like the covenantal framework of the Pentateuch are presupposed in the background; cf., e.g., Exod 34:11–16, 27; Deut 29:13–14[14–15].

Solemn Oath? Renewed Covenant? New Covenant?

373

had a Vorlage that differed from MT Ezra (so also Talshir 2001: 457–58). But the translator seems to have minimized the possible connection between the wording of his Hebrew text and the divine covenant passages in the Hebrew Bible. He seems rather to have understood the ‫ ברית‬as an agreement among the returned exiles and not as a covenant with Yahweh. This argues in favor of interpreting the verse as suggested above. Another exegetical question that must be considered, however, is the function of the following word in Ezra 10:3, ‫—לאלהינו‬in particular, the force of the preposition ‫ל‬. The sequence of ‫ כרת ברית‬followed by a noun with lamed preposition is usually thought to indicate that the subject of the verb is imposing a covenant on an inferior. 7 This cannot apply in Ezra 10:3, because it would imply that the community of the returned exiles is superior to their God. Accordingly, this passage and 2 Chr 29:10 (for the same reason) are commonly recognized as exceptional. A possible explanation is that, by the Postexilic period, the lamed in a phrase such as this no longer indicated the relative status between the covenant partners. But that would still seem to point to Yahweh as a party to the envisioned agreement. 1 Esdr 8:90, however, has the construction γενέσθω ἡμῖν ὁρκωμοσία πρὸς τὸν κύριον ‘let us swear an oath to the Lord’. 8 This may conceive the situation as one in which the parties take an oath in Yahweh’s name, rather than making an agreement with Yahweh himself. The commitment would then still be one among humans. 9 Thus, it may still be possible to understand the ‫ ברית‬in Ezra 10:3 as an oath sworn by the community in Yahweh’s name, rather than a covenant made with Yahweh, but the other option seems quite viable also. A helpful comparison seems afforded by Jer 34:8–22. This text refers to a covenant that King Zedekiah and the people of Jerusalem made to liberate all their Judean slaves (‫כרת המלך צדקיהו ברית את־כל־העם אשר בירושלם לקרא‬ ‫ ;להם דרור‬v. 8). It says that all the officials and people who “had entered into” (‫ )באו ב‬the covenant obeyed and set their Hebrew slaves free (v. 10). It then states that the people reversed themselves and reenslaved those they had freed, prompting an oracle from Yahweh through Jeremiah­. In 7.  Weinfeld (1975: 259) says the form with ‫ כרת  ברית‬and ‫ ל‬usually involves a superior prescribing terms to an inferior or making an inferior commit himself. He puts Josh 24:25 in this category and says the same pattern in Ezra 10:3 and 2 Chr 29:10 is a later and irregular usage. Also worth considering is Ezek 34:25, which uses the same construction. Yahweh is the superior prescribing the terms to the inferior, but all the terms are for the benefit of the recipient. Thus, in this case, the one giving the covenant obligates himself for the benefit of the recipient (Block 1998: 303). 8.  The Vorlage of 1 Esdras evidently read ‫ ליהוה‬for MT ‫לאלהינו‬. 9.  See Ezek 17:11–19 and 2 Chr 36:13 for a similar scenario.

374

Douglas J. E. Nykolaishen

the oracle, Yahweh also mentions that they had made a covenant (vv. 15, 18; ‫ כרת‬with ‫ ברית‬in both). There is a preposition designating the party with whom the king made the covenant in v. 8 (‫)את‬, but there is no such preposition in vv. 10, 15, 18. The preposition in vv. 15, 18 (‫ )לפני‬indicates that the covenant was made in Yahweh’s presence. Thus, the four references to covenant making use three slightly different wordings, but they quite clearly describe the same event. The textual data show that this was a solemn agreement made between humans. In Ezra 10:3, then, the preposition may not point to the party with whom the community makes the covenant. Instead, as in Jer 34:10, 15, 18, those said to make the covenant might simply make it with each other. The lamed preposition would indicate that the covenant is made in God’s presence (Williamson 1985: 143), emphasizing the seriousness of the agreement, 10 or, as in 1 Esdras, that the agreement involved an oath taken in Yahweh’s name. This interpretation seems borne out by the continuation of the narrative, in which the members of the community swear an oath to take a course of action, rather than explicitly making or renewing a covenant with Yahweh (‫ להוציא כל־נשים והנולד‬. . . ‫נכרת ברית‬ ‫‘ מהם‬we swear an oath . . . to send away all the wives and their children’, Ezra 10:3). The implication seems to be that they are committing themselves to removing the foreign wives and the offspring of those wives from among them. Still further on, the narrative reports specific steps taken in this direction (vv. 5, 7–17). There is nothing else to suggest that they intend to enact a covenant with Yahweh. It is entirely possible to take Shecaniah’s suggestion as advocating just what we find in the narrative, a solemn oath, sworn before Yahweh, to put away the foreign wives, and nothing more. In fact, the passage in 2 Chr 29:10 with similar terminology (‫ )לכרות ברית ליהוה‬is often interpreted in just this way. Hezekiah intended to make a solemn agreement so that Yahweh’s fierce anger might turn away from him and his people (Japhet 1993: 919; Thompson 1994: 345). Because the phrase ‫ כרת ברית‬can be used to designate solemn agreements between human beings, the principle of parsimony leads to the conclusion that Shecaniah’s meaning in Ezra 10:3 was for the community to make a solemn commitment before Yahweh to send away the foreign wives with their children. Furthermore, the description of the covenant in Jer 34:15 as having been made in the presence of Yahweh seems connected to the fact that it 10. Cf. Bautch (2009: 41), who suggests that the covenant may have been seen as a cultic offering.

Solemn Oath? Renewed Covenant? New Covenant?

375

was made in the temple (‫)בבית‬, which could include the temple courtyard. 11 Ezra 10:1 says that Ezra was praying in front of (‫ )לפני‬the temple when he was approached by Shecaniah, and v. 6 says that after the agreement or covenant was made, Ezra left the area in front of the temple, implying that the agreement was made in front of the temple. Both the account in Jeremiah and the account in Ezra seem to describe agreements among a group of people solemnized in front of the temple and therefore solemnized in Yahweh’s presence. 12 This seems to provide a satisfactory answer to the initial inquiry: Ezra 10 describes a solemn oath rather than the enactment or renewal of a divine covenant. But there are other contextual factors to consider before coming to a conclusion.

Renewed Covenant? It should not be overlooked, however, that there were other terms available to Shecaniah or the narrator of Ezra 10 for referring to the process of swearing an oath (e.g., ‫שבע‬, v. 5; ‫נתן יד‬, v. 19; ‫כרת אמנה‬, Neh 10:1[9:38]). The fact that he chose a phrase so frequently associated in biblical literature with covenants between Yahweh and Israel raises the possibility that these associations were intended to be brought to the fore in this context (similarly, Linington 2006: 684). The possibility seems heightened when another interesting feature of Jeremiah 34 is considered. In Yahweh’s oracle through the prophet, he refers to the covenant made with his audience’s ancestors when he brought them out of Egypt (v. 13). He then specifies one of the terms of that covenant (freeing Hebrew slaves every seventh year) and points out that the ancestors were disobedient on that point (v. 14). After acknowledging that the present generation recently did right by repenting and making their solemn agreement to free their slaves, he indicts them for their reversal in retaking those slaves (vv. 15–16). He then refers to the guilty people as “those who transgressed my covenant and did not keep the terms of the covenant that they made before me” (v. 18). Yahweh thus draws a close connection between the covenant he made with the ancestors and the covenant the present 11.  Note, for example, that in Jeremiah 7 the prophet is to address those who have passed through the temple gates in order to worship (v. 2), who are then said to stand in Yahweh’s presence in his house and feel safe (v. 10). 12.  Mendenhall (1962: 716–17) came to the same conclusion about these two “covenants.” More recently, Buchanan (2003: 44) has drawn the same conclusion concerning Ezra 10, and Allen (2008: 388) interprets ‫ ברתי‬in Jer 34:18 as shorthand for “the covenant made in my presence.”

376

Douglas J. E. Nykolaishen

audience made among themselves in his presence. 13 Specifically, the latter covenant should have functioned as a way of correcting the transgression of the former covenant. Yahweh says the present audience is guilty on two counts: they transgressed the covenant with the ancestors by not releasing their slaves as prescribed, and then, after rightly pledging to correct this unacceptable behavior, they did not keep their word. Rhetorically, the designation of ‫ ברית‬for the later agreement facilitates its conceptual association with the earlier. It is possible to understand the narrative of Ezra 9–10 along similar lines. In Ezra 9:1–2, Ezra is alerted by the officials that some of the people of Israel (which appears to refer to the returned exiles; cf. v. 4) have intermarried with the peoples of the lands. Their report casts this behavior as an infraction of the prohibition against intermarrying with the inhabitants of Canaan contained in the legislation of Deuteronomy and thus, a violation of the covenant with the ancestors. Ezra responds with mourning and a penitential prayer in which he also draws on pentateuchal texts to demonstrate that the exiles’ actions constitute a breach of the earlier covenant (vv. 3–15). The word ‫ ברית‬is not used in Ezra 9, but the community is seen to be in violation of laws associated with the covenant. In Jeremiah 34, this is explicitly said to constitute breaking the covenant with Yahweh (v. 18). It is hard to imagine that the same conclusion would not follow in Ezra 9. In response to Ezra’s prayer, of repentance on behalf of the community, Shecaniah proposes that they make a solemn agreement (‫כרת‬ ‫ )ברית‬before Yahweh to send away all the foreign wives and their children (10:2–4). The repentance and agreement (designated by ‫ )כרת ברית‬made in Yahweh’s presence parallel the actions described in Jeremiah 34. Just as the agreement of Jeremiah 34 had its ties to the covenant with the ancestors rhetorically strengthened through the use of the phrase ‫כרת ברית‬, so in Ezra 10:3, the use of the same phrase may serve the same purpose with respect to the agreement made there. In other words, in context, the choice of words reinforces the portrayal of events as an instance of covenant transgression followed by recommitment to the covenant. One of the important differences between Jeremiah 34 and Ezra 9–10, however, is that Jeremiah 34 makes the connections between former and latter covenants absolutely explicit. Jeremiah’s audience is indicted for the same sins as their ancestors, and because of it, they are said to have also broken the earlier covenant. In Ezra 9–10, on the other hand, the same logic obtains, but the aspect of covenant fidelity is not explicitly addressed. 13.  “In v. 18 this covenant is actually equated with the covenant that Yahweh made with the ancestors (v. 13)” (Holladay 1989: 238).

Solemn Oath? Renewed Covenant? New Covenant?

377

The narrator achieves this effect instead by his arrangement of speeches and events. But this arrangement may then function as a clue to the narrator’s understanding of the events he recounts. Klaus Baltzer included Ezra 9–10 as one example of covenant renewal in his well-known monograph on the subject. He pointed to a number of features that the passage has in common with other instances of covenant making or renewal in the Hebrew Bible to support his claim. He noted (1) the assembly before the house of God (9:1; 10:5); (2) the review of antecedent history (within the confession of past sins, 9:6–15); (3) the acknowledgment of present sin (10:2); (4) the stipulation (10:3, with explicit use of the term ‫ ;)ברית‬and (5) the oath of commitment, first by the leaders (10:5) and then by the whole people (10:9–44; Baltzer 1971: 47–48). 14 It is difficult to dismiss these shared features as coincidental. 15 Thus, they contribute to the case in favor of reading this episode as a covenant renewal. But Baltzer seemed to suggest that Shecaniah was selfconsciously proposing a renewal of Yahweh’s covenant with the fathers. The evidence reviewed earlier, however, seemed to show that Shecaniah’s proposal was essentially an invitation to make a solemn agreement to take action on a specific issue. 16 The extent to which Shecaniah or Ezra or any of the historical participants may have seen this as an instance of covenant renewal is not completely clear. The similarities to covenant renewal appear quite evident to the reader only because of the narrator’s selection and arrangement of events and speeches. Shecaniah was not responsible for Ezra’s review of antecedent history (mediated to the reader, as it is, by the narrator), nor was Ezra responsible for Shecaniah’s suggestion, unless one assumes a kind of choreographed performance. While Shecaniah may have been pushing only for an end to the mixed marriages, it seems that it was the narrator who wished to portray the event as a covenant renewal or something a lot like a covenant renewal. 14.  Baltzer (1971: 45) also noted that the stipulations normally appear as imperatives or second person jussives, but are formulated in the first person in Nehemiah 10. He inferred that this was because the commands were already well-known and the people were accepting their obligations. His conclusion, which would apply equally to Ezra 10:3, deserves consideration. 15.  Dor (2003: 29) says that in Ezra 9–10 there are two different sources, “and hence it is impossible to see them as stages in the continuous plot of one story.” However, even if her premise about sources were granted, it would seem precisely to have been the narrator’s or editor’s intent to convey a single story in Ezra 9–10, rather than to encourage division into separate accounts. 16.  The very fact that Shecaniah’s proposal mentioned only one stipulation speaks against the likelihood that he intended it as a covenant renewal. I am indebted to Gary Knoppers for this observation.

378

Douglas J. E. Nykolaishen

But even if the narrator has succeeded in making the elements of covenant renewal recognizable to the reader, there are still some unique features of this account that set it apart from other covenant renewals. The following may be noted. (1) In other instances of covenant renewal, the impetus for renewal comes from a prominent character in the narrative, in fact, generally the most prominent available, whether Joshua (Josh 24:1), Jehoiada (2 Kgs 11:17), or Josiah (2 Kgs 23:1). In Ezra 10, however, the exhortation to commit to sending away the foreign wives comes from Shecaniah, who is not identified further, other than by his descent from Jehiel of the Elamites. 17 The nearest parallel to this unusual state of affairs is in Nehemiah 10, where the community as a whole makes a “firm agreement” (v. 1[9:38]) to obey the law of God. In that case, however, the narrative simply records the text of the written document containing their commitment, without specifying who suggested that it be drawn up. As the narrative stands, that agreement is clearly a response to the penitential Levitical prayer of Nehemiah 9, as well as to the reading of the law that preceded the prayer. But there is no mention in the prayer of renewing the covenant, or, indeed, of any specific course of action. Insofar as the impetus for covenant renewal comes from a relatively minor character, then, the account of Ezra 10 is distinctive. (2) The response of the people at large to the covenant renewal is typically very positive in other accounts. The impression usually given is that there is unanimous agreement to pledge themselves to keep the terms of the covenant (e.g., 2 Chr 29:10–19; 34:31–33). The narrative of Ezra 10, however, introduces complications. Shecaniah’s proposal is accepted by Ezra, who administers an oath to “the leading priests, the Levites and all Israel” (v. 5). When the proclamation is made to the returned exiles throughout Judah and Jerusalem to assemble at Jerusalem, all respond as instructed (vv. 7–9). When Ezra addresses the throng and calls for separation from the foreign wives, the crowd is in complete agreement (v. 12). All this compares favorably with other covenant renewal scenarios. But when the suggestion is made to get down to the practical matter of investigating and handling the individual cases, there is dissension. Ezra 10:15 says, “Only Jonathan son of Asahel and Jahzeiah son of Tikvah op17.  It may be noted that as prominent a character as Zerubbabel is referred to in Ezra–Nehemiah without epithet beyond his ancestry (cf. Japhet 1982: 68–69). But his prominence is established by the number of times he appears in the narrative, presented as one of the leaders of the returned exiles. Although it is probable that Shecaniah had significant standing within the golah community, his importance appears in context to be secondary to that of Ezra.

Solemn Oath? Renewed Covenant? New Covenant?

379

posed this [literally, ‘stood up against this’, ‫]עמדו על־זאת‬, and Meshullam and Shabbethai the Levites supported them” (NRSV). The syntax of this verse is somewhat difficult to unravel, and in any case its interpretation is a challenge. It may be that the individuals named opposed the plan of the majority, thinking it procrastination, or thinking there was a better way to handle things. 18 Or they may have completely opposed the plan to put away foreign wives. Whatever the nature of the opposition, it appears that there was disagreement on the issue and that in the eyes of some, the others were not displaying the appropriate level of commitment to torah. This introduces a feature not present in other covenant renewal accounts. And further ambiguity follows. The plan of the majority is adopted over the objections of those mentioned in v. 15. When the full list of offenders­is drawn up, the descendants of the priests whose names are on it are identified, and the reader is told that they agreed to send away their wives (vv. 18–19). 19 The text then includes the remaining list of offenders. The final verse of Ezra 10, however, is difficult to translate. After the list of those from “Israel” who had married foreign wives comes the cryptic statement at the end of v. 44 (‫)ויש מהם נשים וישימו בנים‬. An attempt at a literal rendering of the MT may go something like this: “And there were from them wives, and they put sons.” Most commentators believe that there is textual corruption at this point (see Williamson 1985: 144–45; Blenkinsopp 1988: 197, 200). Some choose to read with 1 Esdr 9:36 that “they sent them away with their children.” This would certainly make sense in the context and would be a much easier reading than the MT. But it is entirely possible that the translator of 1 Esdras was attempting to make sense of a Vorlage that puzzled him as well. The ending of the episode preserved in the MT leaves ambiguity about the actual outcome of events. Just as there was initial agreement among the community to put away the foreign wives but dissension when it came time to make a concrete plan, it may be that once the list of offenders was drawn up and it came time to finally take action, at least some did not follow through. The statement in Ezra 10:19 reported that the priests’ descendants pledged to send away their wives. But there is no statement of a pledge by the others 18.  Williamson (1985: 156–57), Blenkinsopp (1988: 194), and Klein (1999: 742– 43) suggest that the opponents may actually have been in favor of an even more rigorous approach to the matter. 19.  There is no mention here of the children involved, and the significance of this lack is unclear. It may be that their inclusion is merely to be inferred (cf. v. 3). On the other hand, it may be an indication that the community’s adherence to the original plan was less than complete.

380

Douglas J. E. Nykolaishen

on the list. 20 The difficulties associated with v. 44 make it impossible to be sure, but there is no clear statement in Ezra 10 that anyone actually followed through on the plan. Such a drastic implication may not have been intended by the narrator. But in the text as it has come down to us, the indications of actual compliance are slight. Together with the dissension noted in v.  15, this qualifies the impression of unity within the community. 21 This is an unusual addition among episodes depicted in terms of covenant renewal. The initial eagerness is unprecedented, but there are factors that limit the extent to which the reader may conclude that the typical positive outcome has been achieved. If the narrator has produced an account with unusual features it is important to ask what the overall effect is. 22 Before doing that, however, it may be helpful to consider the treatments of covenant renewal found in the writings of the Latter Prophets.

New Covenant? It is not possible in this essay to give a thorough account of prophetic texts concerning the anticipated renewal of Israel’s relationship with Yah20.  Williamson (1985: 158) suggests that there originally were statements of this sort for each group of names in a structure reminiscent of Numbers 7 and that they were edited out for stylistic reasons. 21.  This impression is strengthened when one notes that, elsewhere in Ezra, “every important event is concluded with a description of the celebration and the joy of the people” (Karrer-Grube 2008: 141 n. 10); cf. Ezra 3:11–13; 6:16–17, 22; 7:27. 22. A variety of perspectives on the relationship between Ezra 9 and 10 exists. Among the more recent treatments, Pakkala concludes that Ezra 10 was written first and contained the covenant theme from the start, and that Ezra 9 was later added to provide theological reflection on and explicit pentateuchal grounding for the actions narrated in chap. 10 (2004: 132–33). He attributes perceived tension in the details between the two chapters, such as the appearance of Shecaniah in 10:3 without previous introduction, to differing authorship (p. 83), later editing by a golah circle, and still later editing by a Levitical circle (p. 134), while maintaining that the same theological outlook is evident in both Ezra 9 and Ezra 10 (p. 133). Asurmendi also believes Ezra 9 was written later than Ezra 10 and detects a literary strategy at work to provide religious support for the social and political structure imposed by the events of Ezra 10 (2004). Pohlmann also judges that the prayer of Ezra 9 is a later addition to the narrative, along with the references to those who “tremble” at God’s words/commandments (Ezra 9:4, 10:3; 2004: 492). The purpose of these insertions was to provide a paradigm to show the editor’s contemporaries how to make their influence felt in the community (p. 495). Dor identifies three separate documents: 10:7–44, 10:2–6, and 9:6–15 (with its accompanying frame story, 9:1–5, 10:1), written in that order (2003: 45–47). She sees each of the additions as a successive attempt to provide a revised version of events that would appear more relevant to the editor’s contemporaries. The approaches of each of these writers steer them away from considering how the features noted in the present essay create the effect of portraying the events of Ezra 9–10 as an unusual covenant renewal.

Solemn Oath? Renewed Covenant? New Covenant?

381

weh, nor even of those that specifically use the word ‫ברית‬. 23 The passages that refer explicitly to a future covenant are part of a wider concern and must be understood within that context. 24 Deut 30:1–10, for example, outlined the expectation that a time would come when the Israelites would turn wholeheartedly to Yahweh, and he himself would render them able to love and obey him with utmost sincerity. This was to be accompanied by a gathering of the Israelites from any place where they may have been scattered and their return to the land of promise. Renewed blessing was to ensue. Many passages from the prophetic books touch on these themes and describe similar expectations. 25 Included among these are passages that explicitly refer to a new ‫ברית‬. 26 To narrow the focus of discussion at this point, it may be said that a key theme that emerges from passages that make explicit reference to a future covenant between Yahweh and Israel, such as Ezekiel 37 and Jeremiah 31 and 32, is that the future restored relationship will involve a radically new level of obedience on Israel’s part to Yahweh’s commands. This obedience is to be spontaneous, sincere, and evident among the whole people without exception. The failure of the previous covenant will not be repeated. Thus, the vision of a restored relationship between Yahweh and Israel includes the restoration of Israel to the land of promise and thorough obedience by Israel to Yahweh’s commands. There are indications in Ezra–Nehemiah that the narrator of the book was interested in the prophetic vision of Israel’s future. 27 The return of the exiles to the land of promise and their response to Yahweh’s torah 23.  Future covenants are clearly referred to in the Latter Prophets at Isa 55:3; 61:8; Jer 31:31–33; 32:40; 50:5; Ezek 16:60, 62; 34:25; 37:26; Hos 2:18. 24. E.g., Lundbom (2004: 466) says that the new covenant prophecy in Jeremiah is the centerpiece of a larger hope that includes a new act of salvation, a new Zion, and a new Davidic king; Eichrodt (1970: 475) notes the piling up of familiar prophetic eschatological images in Ezekiel 34. For a discussion of various texts that may have influenced expectations about the future of Yahweh’s covenant with Israel, see Olyan 2008. 25.  Greenberg (1997: 736–37) discusses the connections between Deuteronomy 30 and several passages in Jeremiah. 26. Because the expectations described in Deuteronomy 30 are portrayed as accompanying the covenant with the ancestors from its earliest days, the distinction between covenant renewal and enacting a new covenant may not be as clear-cut as is sometimes supposed. For a similar thought, see the comments of Freedman and Miano (2003: 23) on ‫ חדשה‬in Jer 31:31. 27.  Two of the earlier stimulating works on this topic are Koch (1974) and McCon­ ville (1986); more generally it may be said: the prophets believed the house [a metaphorical reference to the relationship expressed in the Sinai covenant] could be rebuilt, and would go on to demonstrate this belief by encouraging the people to rebuild (literally) the House of God. An examination of the literature of the postexilic period confirms this conclusion. Upon returning to their homeland, the people immediately began performing

382

Douglas J. E. Nykolaishen

are prominent subjects in the book. But the case may be made in much greater detail. One notable example is found in the work of Christiane Karrer-Grube (2008: 150–59, especially pp. 152–55). She argues that the conceptual unity of Ezra–Nehemiah is provided by its composition as an interpretation of the restoration of postexilic Judah as a fulfillment of the word of Yahweh spoken by Jeremiah. She sees connections between Ezra– Nehemiah and many parts of Jeremiah, but particularly Jeremiah 30–33. Within that complex of texts, she draws attention to the new covenant promises of chaps. 31–32 and claims that the view of Yahweh’s relationship with Israel found therein is reflected in Nehemiah’s opening prayer in Nehemiah 1. She proposes that the ceremony of Nehemiah 8–10 may be understood as a “replacement” of the covenant between Yahweh and Israel and finds parallels to the predictions of Jeremiah 31–32 in the whole people understanding the torah and being willing to keep it. She goes on to point out that the promises of forgiveness and blessing from Jeremiah 31–32 find correspondence in Nehemiah as well. Her ultimate conclusion is that the editor of Ezra–Nehemiah saw and wanted others to see the events in these texts as a fulfillment of the expectations engendered by Jeremiah’s prophecies. 28 The details of this or that verse could be debated, as could the direction of influence, 29 but it does seem that Jeremiah and Ezra–Nehemiah share a common hope. In other words, what Jeremiah looks forward to, Ezra–Nehemiah celebrates insofar as it sees it coming to pass. There is at least some probability, then, that Ezra–Nehemiah is shaped by concerns similar to those evident in the prophetic books, not least those expressed in texts related to a new covenant between Yahweh and Israel. Given these considerations, it is worthwhile to ask whether they may provide insight into the narrator’s approach to Ezra 9–10. At first blush the mixed marriage episode might seem to provide discouraging evidence with respect to the prophetic expectation. After all, the returned exiles ceremonies of covenant renewal and encouraging adherence to the law of Moses, i.e., the Sinai covenant. (Freedman and Miano 2003: 11) 28.  Because many of Jeremiah’s oracles of future restoration seem explicitly to involve the Northern Kingdom (cf., e.g., Jer 31:31), it is legitimate to wonder how those might be seen as fulfilled in Ezra–Nehemiah. Karrer is not explicit about this in her essay, but she does point to Ezra 6:21 and conclude that in these books Israel may be defined as those who returned from exile along with anyone who chose to join their group (Karrer-Grube 2008: 155). There are also other indications in the book that the golah community is seen as representative of greater Israel (e.g. Ezra 6:17, 8:35). For another example of literary shaping in Ezra–Nehemiah related to the theme of prophecy fulfillment, see Nykolaishen 2008. 29. E.g., Reinmuth (2002: 172–76), who claims that the Nehemiah text influenced the redaction of Jeremiah.

Solemn Oath? Renewed Covenant? New Covenant?

383

have sinned, and they have sinned in a manner that is seen to be fundamentally dangerous to their continued existence as Yahweh’s people (cf. Ezra’s words in 9:14, “Would you not be angry with us until you destroy us without remnant or survivor?”). On the other hand, however, the leaders­of the community approach Ezra and inform him of the situation. Obviously, it is a concern to them. As noted above, this is different from other episodes of covenant renewal, in which the strong, central leader calls the people back to faithfulness. In this case, the call for obedience is coming from a level below. It is here that another feature of the narrative may be noted. Although Ezra was commissioned by Artaxerxes to travel to Yehud to teach the law of Yahweh to the returned exiles (Ezra 7:25–26), the narrative has made no mention of him doing so. Indeed, Ezra–Nehemiah has him do this only in Nehemiah 8, and it seems odd that it should have taken so long. It is common among scholars to conclude that Nehemiah 8 once stood between Ezra 8 and 9 and that the leaders’ concern in Ezra 9 is a response to Ezra’s reading of the law. 30 But there is no textual evidence for this. Even 1 Esdras, which attaches the law-reading episode of Neh 8:1–12 to the covenant renewal of Ezra 9–10, does so after Ezra 10, not before Ezra 9. Regardless of what might be surmised about the actual historical sequence of events, the arrangement of the narrative has it that the officials diagnosed the legal problem and came to Ezra without the benefit of legal training from him. 31 This impression is enhanced by the fact that Ezra acts as though genuinely surprised by the news (Ezra 9:3), which would seem improbable if he had been in the vicinity for some time, carrying out his pedagogical charge. This initiative on the leaders’ part must be seen as a hopeful development. It is as though Ezra, portrayed in some respects as a second Moses (Fried 2008: 92–96), 32 has come to deliver the divine law to Israel and has found that it is already on the hearts of at least some of God’s people. Moreover, the officials quote the Torah to Ezra in their report (vv. 1–2). They also appear to have a sophisticated understanding of it, because they draw conclusions about interactions with the current peoples of the lands 30. The idea goes back at least as far as Torrey 1896: 14–34, but more recent examples include Williamson 1985: 127, 282–86 and Duggan 2001: 5–7. 31. Cf. Fried 2005: 78: “without Nehemiah 8, and the story of Ezra’s reading the law, the concern of the officials in Ezra 9 appears unmotivated.” 32.  Some of the parallels she identifies do not seem valid; for example, the border around the people in Exodus 19 is intended to keep the Israelites away from God’s mountain, whereas the wall built by Nehemiah is intended to protect God’s dwelling and the Israelites inside Jerusalem from non-Israelites. If one follows Fried’s construal of Ezra as a second Moses, the initiative taken by the officials in Ezra 9 is even more striking.

384

Douglas J. E. Nykolaishen

from a text that refers to interacting with peoples no longer in existence. 33 In light of the fact that the episode in Ezra 9–10 has been structured to be similar to a covenant renewal, this feature must be recognized as unique. It is, in the words of Jeremiah, not like the covenant made with the ancestors, nor is it, for that matter, like any of the previous renewals either, and a key difference is as Jeremiah foretold: the torah of Yahweh seems to be written on the hearts of his people (Jer 31:32–33). 34 The initiative of Shecaniah further strengthens this impression. Without any epithetical or genealogical connection that would indicate leader­ ship, he appears to be simply one of the returned exiles. But he is presented as taking the initiative in dealing with the crisis. This departure from the pattern in other covenant renewals points to a shift. Whereas the covenants were previously renewed for Israel at the instigation of priests, kings, or Joshua, here it is an apparently common Israelite who takes the lead. It was part of Jeremiah’s vision that in the new covenant all Israel would know Yahweh equally, from the least to the greatest, without need of teaching (Jer 31:34). 35 And at this point in Ezra 10, there is an indication that this part of the vision may be on its way to realization. 36 33.  For inferences related to the exegetical work that must lie behind the leaders’ speech, see, inter alia, Fishbane 1985: 114–21; Williamson 1985: 130–31; Allen 2003: 71–74; Grätz 2007: 274–77. Note that Williamson and Allen presume that the leaders’ hermeneutical work must have been a result of Ezra’s teaching. Williamson (1985: 150) states that Ezra 10:3 shows that Ezra must have done some teaching on the topic. But it seems very possible that Shecaniah’s mention of Ezra’s ‫‘ עצה‬counsel’ is a reference to his advice inferred from the prayer recorded in chap. 9 and the further praying mentioned in 10:1. According to Tigay (1996: 85), halakic exegesis extends the prohibition to marrying any non-Jew in light of 1 Kgs 11:1–2 and Ezra 9–10 because it carries the danger of apostasy. In this respect, the halakic exegesis seems to continue the exegetical trajectory of the leaders in Ezra 9. It may also be suggested that 1 Kings 11 and its surrounding context may have served as an important influence on the exegesis evident in Ezra 9 (cf. Knoppers 1994: 127, 136–38). 34. If it is thought that mixed marriages provide a strange example to illustrate concern for Yahweh’s torah compared with, say, caring for widows and orphans, it may be noted that Israel was not the only people in the ancient Near East to recognize the moral virtue of protecting such vulnerable classes; compare the prologues to Ur-­ Nammu’s code and to the Code of Hammurapi, the Egyptian Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, and so on. Thus, examples involving care of widows and orphans, or other kinds of cases, may only have illustrated a concern for social justice, which was not exclusive to Yahwism. The mixed marriage issue, however, is portrayed as important solely because of its relation to the preservation of fidelity to Yahweh. 35.  The new covenant “manifests itself as an egalitarian religious vision that embraces everyone in the community without hierarchical preferences of any kind” (O’Connor 2001: 515). 36.  The episode of Ezra’s reading and the Levites’ teaching of the law in Nehemiah 8, however, along with the disobedience addressed in Ezra 9–10, underscores that this

Solemn Oath? Renewed Covenant? New Covenant?

385

While this must be seen as a positive sign in light of the prophetic hope, the other features noted earlier work in the opposite direction. Whereas the vision of a renewed relationship between Israel and Yahweh anticipated wholehearted obedience from all of the people, the narrative of Ezra 10, after such a positive opening, gives indications that optimism about a full realization of the prophetic ideal should be tempered. There is a measure of dissension among the people that points to an unevenness in their response of obedience, perhaps, as Dor (2003: 42) has suggested, even a tendency to delay. The uncertain ending of the episode in Ezra 10 is augmented by the recurrence of the mixed marriage problem in Nehemiah 13. Thus, although the episode in Ezra 10 relates encouraging signs of the hoped-for restoration, it also tempers any triumphal sense that it has fully arrived. 37

Conclusion These considerations may help to clarify the effect of the unusual aspects of the so-called covenant renewal in Ezra 9–10. The narrator has selected and arranged the material in such a way that there appears to be a heightened awareness of and desire to live by torah among the laity of returned exiles, in certain respects unparalleled in the Preexilic Period, and reminiscent of Jeremiah’s new covenant prophecy. At the same time, this embrace of torah is not as thoroughgoing as hoped for in the prophetic literature. The conclusion to which the narrator may be leading is that the situation of the returned exiles represents a partial fulfillment of the prophetic expectation, but that there is further headway yet to be made. As a sort of progress report, he may be saying that there are very encouraging signs, but the full realization is still awaited. 38 The sort of conclusion to be drawn from a study such as this has specifically to do with the intention of the narrator as reflected in the shape he has given to his narrative. But it may also be appropriate to consider what it may point to concerning the creative thinking about covenant taking place in the Persian period. It appears that in the Persian period the prophetic vision of a future ideal covenant between Yahweh and Israel was aspect has not fully been realized. On the people’s need for instruction, see Duggan (2001: 94, 121). 37.  Dor (2003: 36–39, 42–43) identifies several details by which Ezra 10:7–44 presents a less thoroughgoing response to the crisis than vv. 2–6. 38.  Similar conclusions about prophecy fulfillment in Ezra–Nehemiah are reached in McConville 1986. The idea of partially realized hope in Ezra–Nehemiah also appears in Williamson 1985: li–lii and passim.

386

Douglas J. E. Nykolaishen

seen as a means by which the current state of the community of Yehud could be evaluated. But such evaluation apparently admitted of degrees in Ezra–Nehemiah. Covenant renewal episodes in other parts of the Hebrew canon are cast within a conceptual framework in which the only possibilities for Israel are fidelity or infidelity. If fidelity is less than complete, it constitutes total failure. The prophetic oracles concerning future covenants between Yahweh and Israel seem to perpetuate this dichotomy. They characteristically depict a state of affairs in which Israel seems to experience only Yahweh’s blessing while responding with uncompromising obedience. The editor of Ezra–Nehemiah certainly embraced the concepts of obedience and disobedience, fidelity and infidelity. But he also seemed to think it possible to acknowledge some degree of progress or fulfillment of this vision, while at the same time asserting that the community did not reflect a complete realization of prophetic hopes. He communicated this by casting the narrative of Ezra 9–10 in the form of a covenant renewal, which had the effect of highlighting certain features of his narrative. These unusual features then provided commentary on the relative state of affairs in the community in terms of the prophetic covenant ideal. Although the vision of the prophets seems idealistic and utopian, the writer of Ezra– Nehemiah believed that this vision allowed him to affirm certain aspects as representing a genuine step forward even if much was left to be desired. This may have represented a creative step in thinking about covenant.

Bibliography Allen, L. C. 2003 Ezra. Pp. 1­–84 in Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, L. C. Allen and T. S. Laniak. New International Biblical Commentary, Old Testament Series 9. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson / Carlisle: Paternoster. 2008 Jeremiah: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox. Asurmendi, J. 2004 Esdras 9 ou les contours d’une stratégie. Transeuphratène 28: 41–48. Baltzer, K. 1971 The Covenant Formulary: In Old Testament, Jewish, and Early Christian Writings, trans. D. E. Green. Philadelphia: Fortress. Bautch, R. J. 2009 Glory and Power, Ritual and Relationship: The Sinai Covenant in the Postexilic Period. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 471. New York: T. & T. Clark. Blenkinsopp, J. 1988 Ezra–Nehemiah: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster.

Solemn Oath? Renewed Covenant? New Covenant?

387

Block, D. I. 1998 The Book of Ezekiel. Chapters 25–48. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Buchanan, G. W. 2003 The Covenant in Legal Context. Pp. 27–52 in The Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period, ed. S. E. Porter and J. C. R. de Roo. Leiden: Brill. Dor, Y. 2003 The Composition of the Episode of the Foreign Women in Ezra IX–X. Vetus Testamentum 53: 26–47. Duggan, M. W. 2001 The Covenant Renewal in Ezra–Nehemiah (Neh 7:72B–10:40): An Exe­ getical, Literary, and Theological Study. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 164. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Eichrodt, W. 1970 Ezekiel. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster. Fishbane, M. 1985 Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Freedman, D. N., and Miano, D. 2003 People of the New Covenant. Pp. 7–26 in The Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period, ed. S. E. Porter and J. de Roo. Leiden: Brill. Fried, L. S. 2005 A Religious Association in Second Temple Judah? A Comment on Nehemiah 10. Transeuphratène 30: 77–96. 2008 Who Wrote Ezra–Nehemiah—and Why Did They? Pp. 75–97 in Unity and Disunity in Ezra–Nehemiah: Redaction, Rhetoric, and Reader, ed. M. J. Boda and P. L. Redditt. Hebrew Bible Monographs 17. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix. Grätz, S. 2007 The Second Temple and the Legal Status of the Torah: The Hermeneutics of the Torah in the Books of Ruth and Ezra. Pp. 273–87 in The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance, ed. G. N. Knoppers and B. M. Levinson. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Greenberg, M. 1997 Ezekiel 21–37: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 22A. New York: Doubleday. Holladay, W. L. 1989 Jeremiah 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 26–52. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress. Hugenberger, G. P. 1998 Marriage as a Covenant: Biblical Law and Ethics as Developed from Malachi. Biblical Studies Library. Grand Rapids: Baker. Japhet, S. 1982 Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel: Against the Background of the Historical and Religious Tendencies of Ezra–Nehemiah. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 94: 66–98.

388

Douglas J. E. Nykolaishen

1993 I and II Chronicles: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox. Kalluveettil, P. 1982 Declaration and Covenant: A Comprehensive Review of Covenant Formulae from the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East. Analecta Biblica 88. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Karrer-Grube, C. 2008 Scrutinizing the Conceptual Unity of Ezra and Nehemiah. Pp. 136–59 in Unity and Disunity in Ezra–Nehemiah: Redaction, Rhetoric, and Reader, ed. M. J. Boda and P. L. Redditt. Hebrew Bible Monograph 17. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix. Klein, R. W. 1999 The Books of Ezra & Nehemiah. Pp. 661–851 in vol. 3 of The New Interpreter’s Bible, ed. L. E. Keck. 12 vols. Nashville: Abingdon. Knoppers, G. N. 1994 Sex, Religion, and Politics: The Deuteronomist on Intermarriage. Hebrew Annual Review 14: 121–41. Koch, K. 1974 Ezra and the Origins of Judaism. Journal of Semitic Studies 19: 173–97. Linington, S. 2002 The Term ‫ ְבִרית‬in the Old Testament. Part I: An Enquiry into the Meaning and Use of the Word in the Contexts of the Covenant between God and Humans in the Pentateuch. Old Testament Essays 15: 687–714. 2006 The Term ‫ ְבִרית‬in the Old Testament. Part V: An Enquiry into the Meaning and Use of the Word in 1–2 Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah. Old Testament Essays 19: 671–93. Lundbom, J. R. 2004 Jeremiah 21–36: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 21B. New York: Doubleday. McConville, J. G. 1986 Ezra–Nehemiah and the Fulfilment of Prophecy. Vetus Testamentum 36: 205–24. Mendenhall, G. E. 1962 Covenant. Pp. 714–23 in vol. 1 of The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, ed. G. A. Buttrick. 4 vols. New York: Abingdon. Nykolaishen, D. J. E. 2008 The Restoration of Israel by God’s Word in Three Episodes from Ezra– Nehemiah. Pp. 176–99 in Unity and Disunity in Ezra–Nehemiah: Redaction, Rhetoric, and Reader, ed. M. J. Boda and P. L. Redditt. Hebrew Bible Monographs 17. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix. O’Connor, K. M. 2001 Jeremiah. Pp. 487–527 in Oxford Bible Commentary, ed. J. Barton and J. Muddiman. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Olyan, S. M. 2008 The Status of Covenant during the Exile. Pp. 333–44 in Berührungspunkte: Studien zur Sozial- und Religionsgeschichte Israels und seiner Umwelt; Festschrift für Rainer Albertz zu seinem 65. Geburtstag,

Solemn Oath? Renewed Covenant? New Covenant?

389

ed. I. Kottsieper, R. Schmitt, and J. Wöhrle. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 350. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Pakkala, J. 2004 Ezra the Scribe: The Development of Ezra 7–10 and Nehemiah 8. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 347. Berlin: de Gruyter. Pohlmann, K.-F. 2004 Esra als Identifikationsfigur. Pp. 486–98 in Das Manna fällt auch heute noch: Beiträge zur Geschichte und Theologie des Alten, Ersten Testaments; Festschrift für Erich Zenger, ed. F.-L. Hossfeld, L. Schwienhorst-­ Schönberger. Herders biblische Studien 44. Freiburg: Herder. Reinmuth, T. 2002 Der Bericht Nehemias: Zur literarischen Eigenart, traditionsgeschichtlichen Prägung und innerbiblischen Rezeption des Ich-Berichts Nehemias. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 183. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Thompson, J. A. 1994 1, 2 Chronicles. New American Commentary 9. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman. Tigay, J. H. 1996 Deuteronomy. JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. Torrey, C. C. 1896 The Composition and Historical Value of Ezra–Nehemiah. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 2. Giessen: Ricker. Weinfeld, M. 1975 ‫בִרית‬. ְ Pp. 253–79 in vol. 2 of Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren, trans. J. T. Willis. 15 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Williamson, H. G. M. 1985 Ezra, Nehemiah. Word Biblical Commentary 16. Waco, TX: Word.

Reenvisioning the Relationship Covenant in Chronicles Mark J. Boda McMaster Divinity College and McMaster University

No topic has dominated the study of the OT/HB over the past century more than covenant. From the analysis of suzerainty treaties among the Hittites to research on kinship relationships in the ancient Near East, covenant has captured the imagination of multiple generations of students of the Hebrew Bible. This is one of those topics that was easily transferrable into the study of theology, and not only within Protestant Reformed circles for whom covenant was such an essential paradigm for dogmatics. The ubiquitous nature of this study meant that covenant at various times and in many contexts became the dominant hermeneutical lens through which the OT/HB has been read. Unquestionably, the focus of covenant studies has been on the book of Deuteronomy and its attendant traditions, but also on the Torah with its presentation of covenants with Noah, Abraham, Sinai, and Phinheas, as well as the book of Jeremiah with its new covenant. Of course, this pan-covenant party was soon spoiled by some scholars who argued that covenant was a late-breaking phenomenon in the history of Israel as well as by those who revealed a development in the conceptualization and practice of covenant in the history of Israel.

Covenant in Chronicles This scholarly debate over the presence of covenant within the biblical text can also be discerned in the history of scholarship on the books of Chronicles, and there are no two better figures to contrast on this issue than Martin Selman and Sara Japhet. In the introduction to his commentary, Selman (1994: 46, 48) notes not only that “the Davidic covenant is clearly central to the thought of Chronicles” but that “in the Chronicler’s thought the Sinai covenant is the foundation for God’s promises to David.” The latter conclusion was based on the fact that the Chronicler refers to the exodus in several key passages and most importantly emphasizes the 391

392

Mark J. Boda

requirement to obey the laws given through Moses, both in sections the Chronicler has drawn from earlier texts and that are unique to Chronicles. Selman (1994: 48) refers to the law as “covenant law” and finds in the renewals of Jehoshaphat, Asa, Hezekiah, and Josiah covenant experiences in what he called “the tradition of Sinai.” For Selman’s Chronicler, covenant is foundational to the relationship between God and people, not only in the past but also in the present. In contrast, Sara Japhet (1989: 91) comes to the very opposite conclusion that in Chronicles “‘covenant’—whether the result of a past event or an ongoing condition—no longer describes the relationship between God and Israel.” For her, the Davidic “covenant occupies a relatively unimportant position in the book’s world-view” (Japhet 1989: 80), and the same is true for the covenants related to the Patriarchs or to the people as a whole (Sinai), all of which are only mentioned in texts the Chronicler has drawn from other sources. Furthermore, the fact that the Chronicler left out the reference to the exodus in one of these allusions to the covenant with the people as a whole highlights for her a broader strategy of this historical work in which the Chronicler presents the relationship between Israel and Yahweh as one without historical beginning, assumed from creation (Japhet 1989: 97–98). Turning to the covenants in the post-Solomonic era, Japhet (1989: 90) finds substantial diversity in texts that refer to covenantal acts (Josiah, Jehoash, Asa, Hezekiah), but she notes a common trend of covenant referring either to agreements between humans or unilateral human commitments to God. The many commentaries, articles, and monographs that have focused on Chronicles fall somewhere between these two extremes.

Covenant in the Second Temple Period For Japhet the Chronicler’s approach to covenant is not surprising in light of broader developments related to covenant in the Second Commonwealth period, and so any study of covenant in Chronicles must take into account research on these broader developments. 1 Hillers (1969) does not deal with the books of Chronicles in particular, but does provide orientation to later developments in covenant forms. He first notes a shift in the approach to covenant in the presentation of the covenant made by Josiah in the Deuteronomistic History (DtrH). On one level, this covenant is similar to those connected with earlier phases of Israel’s history, involving “obedience to norms established by Yahweh,” “a writ1.  See my earlier work, 1999: 32–38.

Covenant in Chronicles

393

ten document,” the words “he cut a covenant,” and “the idea that one man acts for the people” (Hillers 1969: 145). On another level, however, Hillers (1969: 146) concludes that “the action as a whole is different in intention and form,” because in earlier pacts connected with Sinai Yahweh is “the initiator and major partner” as he “addresses Israel directly.” In the case of Josiah, covenant is made “before” Yahweh, is initiated unilaterally by the human participants, involves Yahweh only as guarantor of promise rather than as a participant in the covenant, aims at “pledging allegiance to a body of laws and of defining obedience to Yahweh as obedience to this corpus,” and has little concern for the history of the relationship (Hillers 1969: 146). “In this context the focus is very much on earth, on the acts good or bad of the kings of Judah, and the covenant entered into is more a matter of human resolution than an offer of God as the last of a series of saving acts” (Hillers 1969: 147). Hillers concludes that this prepares the way for the form of covenant found in the Postexilic Period, exemplars of which are now found in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah: Ezra 9–10 and Nehemiah 9–10. These covenants focus on a sworn agreement to fulfill the law of God through Moses, with a focus on specific regulations. Here, “the covenant has become an affirmation of loyalty to a code of conduct, a pledge of allegiance serving the cause of religious reform” (1969: 149). McCarthy (1982) compares covenant presentations in Deuteronomy, Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah. In an initial, cursory comparison of Deut 26:17–19 and Nehemiah 8–10, McCarthy notes how in Deuteronomy “the first step is a pledge whose object is a personal relationship, the law a guide for living out that relationship,” while in Nehemiah it appears that “the law itself is the object of the pledge. The commitment seems to be to the law, not to a person who guides a relationship by directives or ‘laws.’” 2 His article then proceeds to undermine this latter conclusion by identifying a common structure to covenant renewal texts in Ezra–Nehemiah and Chronicles: (1) parenesis (various kinds of exhortation); (2) covenantmaking; (3) purification of land and people; (4) renewed cult (McCarthy 1982: 36). In this form, he finds nothing of those proposed for other biblical covenants, and traces it instead to a West Semitic prototype at2.  McCarthy 1982: 26. For a view of covenant in Ezra–Nehemiah along these lines, see Mendenhall and Herion in ABD 1:1194: “By the time of Nehemiah [Nehemiah 9–10] the evolution of the covenant (and of the word berît) had run full course from the actual and constitutive foundation of a community to a theological concept to little more than a ritual form and legal document.” For their negative analysis of the covenant text in Ezra 9–10 see ABD 1:1196 where they link Ezra to “Pharisaic (and subsequently rabbinic) Judaism.”

394

Mark J. Boda

tested in the Assyrian adû. Close attention to the function of the Assyrian adû within its social context provides insight into the role played by attention to specific laws in Chronicles–Nehemiah. Thus, the “whole picture of covenant renewal does not point to law as a self-existent thing standing by itself in a realm of ideas. Its heart is commitment to a person in community. The laws merely assure that the community as such can serve him. This is personal devotion, not subjection to rules” (McCarthy 1982: 41). While helpful for avoiding caricatures of the function of the law and cult in Chronicles–Nehemiah, McCarthy’s structure is probably more helpful for an analysis of Chronicles than Ezra–Nehemiah, because in two out of the three covenant renewals in Ezra–Nehemiah (Ezra 9–10, Nehemiah 5) there is little focus on the renewal of cult. 3 The form, however, is helpful for analyzing Chronicles, where purification of land/people and renewed cult are two key components in the accounts. McCarthy’s examination of the Chronicler’s post-Solomonic covenant renewals (Asa, Hezekiah, and Josiah), highlights the centrality of liturgy to covenant renewal, the key role played by prophet, priest, and king leading these renewals together, and the regular employment of the vocabulary of immediate retribution (‫דרׁש‬, ‫כנע‬, ‫מעל‬, ‫ )עזב‬in these texts (McCarthy 1982: 29–32). In Chronicles, the purpose of covenant renewal is to revalidate and purify the cult in order for God to be with his people. Thus, maintaining the temple is equated with keeping the commandments. The Chronicler is “concerned with cultic life in globo” (McCarthy 1982: 35). This clearly contrasts what is found in Ezra–Nehemiah with its concern for specific stipulations related not only to orthodox cult but also to social injustice and religious purity. The Chronicler is also more concerned with the community as a whole, while Ezra–Nehemiah more often focuses on individual names as indicative of the community as a whole. Sperling (1989) identifies in Chronicles a trend he sees as typical of treatments of covenant in what he considers “late biblical books,” that is, a shift away from the conditional covenant of Sinai to a focus on the unconditional covenant (land-grant) established with the remote ancestors. This can be seen in the way 2 Chr 7:21b–22 reuses Deut 29:23–25, eliminating the reference to making covenant following the exodus and eliminating covenant as intermediary between God and people. Thus, whereas the earlier text answers the question “Why did Yahweh do this to this land?” with the statement “Because they forsook the covenant of Yahweh the God of their ancestors, which he made with them when he took them out 3.  Notwithstanding his attempt to transform Nehemiah 5 into an issue of worship, see McCarthy 1982: 40–414.

Covenant in Chronicles

395

of Egypt,” the Chronicler has “Because they forsook Yahweh the God of their ancestors who took them out of Egypt.” Similarly, while the DtrH includes covenant violation as a key violation which caused the exile (2 Kgs 17:15), the Chronicler speaks only of “acting treacherously” (‫ )מעל‬against God and “playing the harlot” (‫ )זנה‬after other gods (1 Chr 5:25). This shift away from covenant as conditional agreement encapsulating the relationship between Yahweh and the people, especially in connection with the Sinai event, is also apparent in the Chronicler’s inclusion of a psalm in 1 Chr 17:15–17 which focuses on the unconditional eternal covenant between Yahweh and his people established with the ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob which ensured the land as gift. Bautch (2009) has recently weighed in on the issue of later conceptions of covenant. He first challenges Hillers view on the Josiah covenant renewal, arguing that the renewal is not limited to particular legislation related to centralization of worship and the renewal does not marginalize God because the preposition ‫ לפני‬is used in other covenant contexts where God is involved (esp. Deut 29; cf. Lev 24:8; Num 18:19; Jer 34:15). Later, he turns his critical attention to my work on the later covenants in Ezra–Nehemiah, arguing how the people’s unilateral assumption of torah obligations draws attention to Yahweh as giver of torah (and thus as covenant partner) and how particular stipulations are accompanied by more general references to the law (Ezra 10:3b; Neh 10:30) or the fear of God (Neh 5:9). In a very helpful move, he notes the close connection between kinship and covenant in the various covenantal texts in Ezra–Nehemiah. While Chronicles does not play a major role in the discussion on covenant, it does provide helpful background for the kinship dimension of Bautch’s argument (Bautch 2009: 97–98). This review of key scholarship on the development of covenant within the later phase of the history of Judah and the Second Temple period and on the presentation of covenant in Chronicles provides a backdrop for my own investigation of covenant in Chronicles. Because I have written on the role of the Davidic covenant elsewhere (Boda 2013), this study will focus on other aspects of covenant in Chronicles. I will leave the ark of the covenant texts in the able hands of Louis Jonker in this volume and instead will begin with a reflection on texts in Chronicles that employ the term ‫ברית‬, in the post-Solomonic phase of the Chronicler’s history. Four texts are thus in view: the depiction of the reigns of Asa (2 Chronicles 15), Joash/Jehoaida (2 Chronicles 23), Hezekiah (2 Chronicles 29) and finally Josiah (2 Chronicles 34). Reflection on these texts will provide a foundation for the broader role of covenant within the book as a whole as well as within texts from the Second Temple period.

Mark J. Boda

396

Covenant in 2 Chronicles 10–36 2 Chronicles 14–16: Asa The Chronicler’s presentation of Asa emphasizes the importance of trust in Yahweh, first through the positive example of Asa’s faith when facing Zerah the Ethiopian (2 Chr 14:6–15) and then the negative example of Asa’s lack of trust when facing Baasha of Israel (2 Chr 16:1–6). In both cases, the prophetic word breaks into the narrative following the battle, in the first instance in 2 Chr 15:1–7 to affirm Asa’s exemplary action and encourage enduring faithfulness and further reform and in the second instance in 2 Chr 16:7–10 to confront Asa’s inappropriate liaison with the Syrians. Both of these prophetic sections are unique to Chronicles, and following the prophetic encouragement in 15:1–7, Asa spearheads key reforms (15:8–15). 4 These reforms include elimination of idols (Judah, Benjamin, Ephraim) and repair of the altar in Jerusalem, followed by a festal­ gathering with participants from Judah, Benjamin, Ephraim, Manasseh, and Simeon at which a great sacrifice was made. It is at this event that we hear of a covenant being made, first, “to seek (‫ )דרׁש‬Yahweh, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and with all their soul” (15:12), and second, to put to death whoever would not seek (‫ )דרׁש‬Yahweh the God of Israel (15:13). 5 This covenant making involved the taking of an oath to Yahweh (15:14), expressed in word (a loud voice, shouting), with instruments (trumpets, horns), and with emotion (rejoicing). 2 Chr 15:15 makes clear the role of the oath as confirmation of their seeking (‫ בקׁש‬Piel) with all their being, before noting that Yahweh was found by them (or Yahweh allowed them to find him), evidence for which appears to be the peaceful conditions they enjoyed. This passage identifies some of the key components of covenant making in Chronicles. First, covenant making occurs in the context of the celebration of cult. Not only is the event at which this covenant is made a gathering for sacrifice (15:9–11), but the covenant making itself as expressed through oath taking is described in liturgical fashion with reference to voice, instruments, and joy. Second, covenant does not itself appear to refer to the relationship between the people and Yahweh but rather to an agreement to pursue rela4. Since 2 Chr 14:3–5 appears in connection with the summary statement concerning Asa’s reign (14:2) it is possible that the reforms referred to in 15:8–15 are foreshadowed in 14:3–5. 5.  For the harshness of the capital punishment, see Deut 17:2–7; 13:6–10; cf. Dillard 1987: 122.

Covenant in Chronicles

397

tionship with Yahweh (“they entered into a covenant to seek Yahweh”). The emphasis on the human agreement is apparent in the focus on oath taking as a sign of the authenticity of the agreement. And the lack of emphasis on the divine side of this agreement is seen in the Chronicler’s description of Yahweh’s response: that he [Yahweh] was found / allowed himself to be found by them. The importance of this divine response is seen in the fact that it is foreshadowed in 2 Chr 15:1–7 twice in the speech of the prophet Azariah, who called Asa to seek (‫ )דרׁש‬Yahweh so that Yahweh may be found / allow himself to be found (‫ מצא‬Niphal) by him (15:2) and later showed that this was a past pattern of Israel when experiencing distress (‫ בקׁש‬Piel . . . ‫ מצא‬Niphal, 15:4). All of these references are echoes of the key charge of David to Solomon in 1 Chr 28:9, in which he encourages his son to serve Yahweh by seeking (‫ )דרׁש‬him with his whole heart and mind because Yahweh searches all hearts and understands every intent of human thought (Williamson 1982: 267). This will result in Yahweh being found / allowing himself to be found (‫ מצא‬Niphal) by Solomon, which is the opposite of Solomon’s being rejected by Yahweh according to 1 Chr 28:9. The use of the roots ‫בקׁש‬/‫( דרׁש‬Piel) with ‫ מצא‬is reminiscent of Deut 4:29, which lays out a Deuteronomistic agenda for renewal for the community in exile and in distress (see 4:39, cf. 2 Chr 15:4). 6 The seeking in Deut 4:29 is also linked with the agenda of full engagement of the affections (with all your heart and all your soul) as in Chronicles. However, the root ‫ מצא‬is expressed as a Qal in Deut 4:29, while in Chronicles it is consistently expressed as a Niphal. The Niphal here may be expressing a passive “be found” or, as indicated in HALOT, a permissive middle: “let one self be found.” 7 In either case, the relationship between seeking and finding is not as direct as expressed in Deut 4:29. The same phrase also appears in Jer 29:13, again in a context focused on the renewal of the community in exile, but in this case it explicitly refers to the gathering of the exilic community from the nations (29:14). As in Deut 4:29 and Chronicles, the seeking is expressed with the two roots, ‫ דרׁש‬and ‫ בקׁש‬Piel, and is 6.  Braun (1986: 273) notes the connection between 28:9 and Deut 4:29; Jer 29:13. Williamson (1982: 181, 267) notes Deut 4:29; Jer 29:13–14; and Isa 55:6. Braun thinks Chronicles is based on Deuteronomy, while von Rad (1966: 276) and Japhet (1993: 718) connect it to Jeremiah (and Japhet also to Isa 65:1; 55:6). Most commentators understand Deuteronomy 4 and Deut 30:1–10 to be additions to Deuteronomy that reflect on the problem of the exile and provide an agenda for the future; e.g., Mayes 1981; McKenzie 1992; although note MacDonald 2006. 7.  Dillard (1987: 112) uses the passive.

398

Mark J. Boda

intimately linked with the engagement of all the affections (“with all your heart”). However, Jer 29:13–14 stands between the expressions found in Deut 4:29 and those in Chronicles, first echoing the active constructions found in Deut 4:29 by prophesying “you will seek (‫ בקׁש‬Piel) me and find (‫ )מצא‬when you search (‫ )דרׁש‬for me with all your heart” (Jer 29:13), before echoing the middle/passive construction in Chronicles for finding: “I will be found / allow myself to be found by you” (Jer 29:14a). 8 In Chronicles, however, the active expression of finding is omitted, as God is merely depicted as permitting them to find him or as being found by them. This evidence suggests a distancing between Yahweh and the covenant agreement. 9 Covenantal seeking is essential, but finding is up to divine rather than human activity. There is a careful protection of the sovereignty of Yahweh as relational partner. 2 Chronicles 22–23: Athaliah/Jehoiada/Joash The second instance in which covenant is used in the post-Solomonic phase of Chronicles is in the Athaliah/Jehoiada/Joash narratives in 2 Chronicles 22–23. The Chronicler refers to three covenants in 2 Chronicles 23. The first is the covenant established between Jehoiada and the four leaders of hundreds in 23:1 10 who then spread throughout Judah to gather Levites and heads of the father’s houses to Jerusalem (23:2). This gathered group, identified as “all the assembly” in 23:3, then makes (‫ )כרת‬a covenant with the king (Joash) in the house of God. Jehoiada’s speech in 23:3b–7 appears to define the character of this covenant as it lays out a specific plan for installing the king on the throne. 11 While here 8.  See also Isa 55:6 and 65:1 where seeking and finding appear together, in both cases with the Niphal. 9.  Murray (2000: 79) expresses some discomfort with the view taken here because he sees it as representing Yahweh “as both passive and distant,” which he finds “quite contrary to the tenor of the revival motif in Chronicles.” However, it is better to see in this a tension with a mechanistic view of covenant, which assumes God can be controlled by covenant forms. This is all ironic in that the Chronicler’s programme has often been treated as mechanistic, while the vocabulary here may suggest that the Chronicler saw his programme as protecting the relationship from the mechanism of some who used the covenant motif. 10.  The phrasing is odd in 2 Chr 23:1, which lacks the expected verb in connection with the covenant. Possibly the opening verb ‫ לקח‬functions in this role. For the use of ‫ לקח‬in connection with making covenant, see Ezek 17:13; Job 40:28. 11.  In 2 Kings 11 the covenant between king and people is mentioned later in the account, in conjunction with what is identified as the covenant between Yahweh, king, and people in 2 Kgs 11:17 and as the covenant between Jehoiada, king and people in 2 Chr 23:16. Thus, in the Chronicler’s account the second covenant between king and people is transferred to an earlier point in the narrative following the covenant between

Covenant in Chronicles

399

the covenant may refer to an initial agreement to pledge loyalty to Joash which then is the foundation for the actions outlined in Jehoiada’s speech, in either case the covenant is an agreement between human parties. The third mention of covenant in 2 Chronicles 23 comes after the coronation of Joash and the assassination of Athaliah in 23:16. Here, Jehoiada takes the lead and makes a covenant between himself, all the people and the king, that they would be Yahweh’s people. In both 2 Kgs 11:17 and 2 Chr 23:16, Jehoiada is the initiator of covenant. However, there are two significant differences between the two accounts. First, in 2 Kgs 11:17 there are two covenants: the parties of the first being Yahweh, the king and the people, and of the second being the king and the people. 12 In Chronicles, the second of these covenants has been transferred to an earlier point in the narrative. Second, in what is now the final covenant agreement in 2 Chronicles 23, Jehoiada takes Yahweh’s place, transforming a covenant which involved a divine partner into one involving human parties alone. 13 Certainly, this covenant is related to Yahweh, because its purpose is “that they should be Yahweh’s people,” but Yahweh is not explicitly designated as a party in the covenant. This climactic covenantal agreement then sparks a series of spontaneous reforms by the people in both 2 Kings 11 and 2 Chronicles 23. Both accounts depict the destruction of illicit cult locations, paraphernalia, and personnel and the embracing of the new king by the military and political leadership of the nation (2 Kgs 11:18–20 // 2 Chr 23:17–18a, 20–21). The Chronicler, however, includes information on positive cultic activity directed by priests and Levites and related to sacrifice and singing (2 Chr 23:18b). Additionally, the Chronicler notes that careful attention was given to the protection of the temple from any uncleanness (2 Chr 23:19). 14 Jehoiada and the four captains of hundreds and before the people initiate the plot against Athaliah, thus this covenant “establishes the basis for all the subsequent actions” (Japhet 1993: 835). 12.  Japhet (1993: 835) argues that the consequences of the first covenant are described in 2 Kgs 11:18 (eradication of Baal worship), while the consequences of the second covenant are found in 2 Kgs 11:19–20 (renewal of Davidic rule). 13.  See especially Japhet (1993: 835): “The result of this seemingly minor change [bēn yhwh to bēno] is that the Lord is no longer a partner to the covenant; this is a ‘firm undertaking’ of the people themselves including the high priest and the king, to be ‘the Lord’s people’, with the broader implications including both ‘religious/ritual’ (vv. 18–19), and ‘political’ aspects (vv. 20–21)”; and Williamson (1982: 317): “The Chronicler has somewhat simplified his Vorlage so as to make of it no more than a solemn act of rededication to God by the whole nation.” Cf. Japhet 1989: 98–99; Noth 1966: 115–16. Contra Dillard (1987: 183), who sees this change as “no more than paraphrase on the part of the Chronicler, so that no distinctive Tendenz is intended.” 14.  This same concern is evident earlier in the account in 2 Chr 23:6; cf. 2 Kgs 11:7.

400

Mark J. Boda

The covenants depicted in the account of Athaliah/Jehoiada/Joash, first of all, highlight a close link between covenant making and renewal of cult. This renewal involves not only the removal of illicit cult, the focus of the account in 2 Kings, but also the positive restoration of orthodox worship, authorized by David, facilitated by priests and Levites, and comprising both sacrifice and praise. 15 This orthodox worship is related not to a specific feast but rather to the regular rhythms of worship at the temple. 16 Second, the covenants in 2 Chronicles 23 again are dominated by human participants, seen especially in the replacement of Yahweh with Jehoiada as party to the covenant between the people and the king. Yahweh is placed at a step removed from the covenantal arrangement. 2 Chronicles 29–31: Hezekiah Covenant is also mentioned in the depiction of Hezekiah in 2 Chronicles 29. In v. 10, in a section unique to the Chronicler, Hezekiah is depicted using the classic language of covenant: “Now it is in my heart to make a covenant with Yahweh God of Israel that his burning anger may turn away from us.” This burning anger is exemplified in the death of a previous generation and the exile of a present generation (v. 8–9). The preceding verses make clear the cause of this burning anger, identifying it with the uncleanness that has been introduced into the holy precincts (v. 5b) and especially the lack of attention to proper cultic activity at these holy precincts (vv. 6–7). The verses that follow v. 10 appear to define the nature of Hezekiah’s covenant, and it is clear that it is dominated by renewal of cult. 17 The very next verse, v. 11, sets the tone for Hezekiah’s covenantal intentions by focusing exclusively on the priests and Levites (see 29:4–5) and their role in God’s presence and opens the way to a renewal that entails the cleansing and sanctifying of the temple (29:12–19; 15.  Japhet (1993: 835) notes how “restoration of a full and proper cult in the Temple . . . is altogether missing from Kings.” 16.  This emphasis on the regular activity of the cult is also evident in the depiction of Joash’s reforms in 2 Chr 24:1–14, especially in the references to “from year to year” (2 Chr 24:5), “day after day” (24:11), “continually all the days of Jehoiada” (24:14). Also, the reference to the tax levied by Moses in the wilderness (2 Chr 24:6, 9; cf. Exod 30:12–16). 17.  This focus on the temple and cult as the heart of Hezekiah’s renewal is also signaled by the use of the phrase “in my heart to” (‫ )עם־לבבי‬followed by the infinitive. Elsewhere in Chronicles this phrase is restricted to references to David’s intention to build the temple (1 Chr 22:7; 28:2; bracketing David’s preparations and two commissions to Solomon; repeated then in 2 Chr 6:7, 8 at the dedication of the temple). Cf. Williamson (1982: 353), who notes, “Language used elsewhere of the preparations for the initial building is here taken up again at its rededication.”

Covenant in Chronicles

401

30:14) as well as the reinstituting of worship in three phases: a dedication service in 29:20–36, a feast (Passover) in 30:1–27, and ongoing festal events in 31:2–21. This sort of worship entails both sacrifice (29:20–24, 31–36; 30:15–20, 22b; 31:2b) and praise (29:25–30; 30:21, 22c; 31:2c). While Hezekiah clearly expresses his intention to “make a covenant with Yahweh God of Israel,” the narrative that follows defines what is meant by this intention. Hezekiah never speaks directly to Yahweh but rather immediately addresses the Levites and begins a series of cultic reforms, both negative and positive, to reinstitute the rhythms of cult. This becomes obvious in Hezekiah’s letter to the Israelites in 2 Chr 30:6–9, where the language of covenantal ‫ׁשוב‬, associated in an earlier era with turning from idolatry and/or immorality and resulting in a return to the land is now defined by attention to worship at the temple (30:8; cf. 30:11–27). The presentation of Hezekiah in 2 Chronicles reveals that covenant is focused on the human party in the covenant relationship 18 and covenant is focused on attention to cult. 2 Chronicles 34–35: Josiah The last mention of covenant in Chronicles appears in 2 Chr 34:31–32 in the depiction of the renewal under Josiah. This time Josiah is depicted as standing (‫ )עמד‬in his place and making covenant (‫ )כרת ברית‬before (‫ )לפני‬Yahweh, this latter phrase the same as that found in 2 Kgs 23:3. The phrase “to make a covenant before (‫ ”)כרת ברית לפני‬is found in the Hebrew Bible elsewhere in 1 Sam 23:18; 2 Sam 5:3 // 1 Chr 11:3; and Jer 34:15. In 1 Sam 23:18, it is used to depict the covenant agreement between David and Jonathan and appears to identify Yahweh as a witness to this agreement. 19 In 2 Sam 5:3 // 1 Chr 11:3 it is used to depict the covenant agreement struck between David and the elders of Israel, again with Yahweh as the witness. 20 Jeremiah 34:15, 18 uses this collocation to refer to an agreement by the people of Jerusalem to release their slaves. According to 34:8, the covenant was made between King Zedekiah and all the people in Jerusalem. This agreement was proclaimed “before Me in the house which is called by my name,” thus a reference to Yahweh as 18. See Williamson 1982: 353–354; Japhet 1989: 89–91; and Mason 1990: 101 for the lack of the earlier concept of covenant here in the Hezekiah narrative as well as throughout Chronicles. 19.  So also Japhet (1989: 83), who notes the use of the prepositions ‫בין‬, ‫עם‬, ‫את‬, or ‫ ל־‬to introduce a party to the covenant (cf. Gen 9:15; 16:18; Deut 5:2–3; 2 Sam 5:3). 20.  See 2 Sam 3:21, where Abner foreshadows this by referring to a covenant made by David with all Israel.

402

Mark J. Boda

witness to this agreement. 21 Thus, as Japhet (1989: 84) has noted, “to make a covenant before Yahweh” in 2 Chr 34:31–32 (and its parallel in 2 Kgs 23:3), is a “unilateral undertaking” in terms of the relationship between the people and God, and only a bilateral agreement in terms of the relationship between the king and the people. Both king and people make a commitment in each others’ presence and in the presence of Yahweh. 22 In 2 Kgs 23:3, the people are described as “standing” (‫ )עמד‬in the covenant, which appears to refer to entering into the covenant. The Chronicler, however, in 2 Chr 34:32 expands this description, depicting those found in Jerusalem and Benjamin as being made to stand (‫ עמד‬Hiphil) by Josiah, with no reference to covenant, 23 and then “acting according to the covenant of God, the God of their ancestors.” The very following verse, 2 Chr 34:33, identifies the negative and positive dimensions of this renewal: taking away the abominations and making all Israel serve Yahweh their God. The emphasis in the account of Kings is clearly on the removal of illicit cult with very little attention to the renewal of orthodox worship (cf. 23:21–23). In contrast, while the Chronicler gives attention to the removal of illicit cult (34:4–7), he leaves much of this material from 2 Kings 23 out (23:4–5, 7–20, 24–27), emphasizing instead the renewal of orthodox worship (2 Chr 35:1–17), consisting of sacrifice (35:1b–14) and praise (35:15a). The depiction of covenant in relation to Josiah in Chronicles thus continues emphases observed earlier in this study. First of all, covenant making involves Yahweh not explicitly as partner but rather as witness. Second, renewal of worship is the key result of covenant agreement.

Summary and Conclusion What can be discerned within the limited texts in Chronicles which refer to covenant using the classic vocabulary of ‫כרת ברית‬, is that there 21.  The reference to “my covenant” in Jer 34:18 refers most likely not to the covenant made between Zedekiah and the people of Jerusalem, but rather to the covenant Yahweh made with the ancestors at Sinai which is referred to in Jeremiah’s speech. 22. Contra Bautch (2009: 41), who claims that ‫ לפני‬appears in connection with reciprocal covenant making elsewhere, most notably Deut 29:14–15. There, however, the preposition does not appear in the collocation ‫כרת ברית לפני‬. The reciprocal character of this covenant experience is noted in 29:11[12] by ‫כרת ברית עם‬. This merely shows that a reciprocal covenant can be made “before” the deity but does not mean that all covenants made “before” the deity involve the deity as covenant partner. Bautch’s other passages (Lev 24:8; Num 18:19; Jer 34:15) are even weaker. 23. Although it is possible that ‫ ובנימן‬is a scribal error for ‫ ;בברית‬cf. Williamson 1982: 403; Japhet 1989: 85 n. 313.

Covenant in Chronicles

403

appears to be several shifts in Chronicles from earlier covenantal presentations. Remember that these shifts do not refer to the Chronicler’s entire ideology, but to the use of the classic terminology of covenant: • shift from bilateral (entailing the response of both parties) to unilateral (entailing the response of one party) covenantal commitments between divine and human parties; in the texts considered above the unilateral is limited to human origin • shift from focus on covenant relationship in general to focus on the renewal of cult, both in general as well as to particular stipulations related to the festal calendar and activities

What is obvious from the above study, however, is the relative paucity of references to covenant in Chronicles. The concern to even trace the motif of covenant, is one prompted by the importance of covenant in other texts of the OT/HB and one wonders if this book had been the only one preserved from the OT/HB whether covenant would even find its way into the subject indexes of scholarly books. As noted long ago by Japhet, there appears then to be a general shift away from covenant as the operative system for articulating the relationship between Yahweh and his people. This is probably best illustrated by looking at the Chronicler’s treatment of earlier texts from DtrH explaining the reasons for the exile. First, the Chronicler’s reuse of Deut 29:23–25 in 2 Chr 7:21b–22 changes “they forsook the covenant of Yahweh the God of their ancestors” to “they forsook Yahweh the God of their ancestors.” Second, the Chronicler’s allusion to 2 Kgs 18:11–12 in 1 Chr 5:25–26 24 shifts the focus from “transgressed his covenant” to “acted treacherously against the God of their fathers and played the harlot after the gods of the peoples of the lands.” In both cases, treating two of the most important passages to Dtr historiography (interpreting the destruction of the land), the Chronicler has eliminated covenant terminology, leaving behind only a reference to Yahweh. This removal of covenant terminology must be seen then in light of broader developments in the books of Chronicles. The Chronicler’s characteristic vocabulary is that articulated in the Chronicler’s version of Yahweh’s response to Solomon’s prayer in 2 Chr 7:14. 25 While this vocabulary has often been described in relation to an underlying theology of 24.  The considerable overlap of vocabulary in 2 Kgs 18:11 and 1 Chr 5:26 makes certain the Chronicler’s source. 25. As Williamson (1977: 151) has noted, “the Chronicler intends us to understand God’s answer to Solomon’s prayer as both literal and as in some way initiating a new phase in God’s relationship with his people.”

404

Mark J. Boda

immediate­retribution, it is better to describe this as the vocabulary of immediate relationship. 26 It is this vocabulary that dominates the remainder­ of Chronicles, encouraging relationship with Yahweh typified by humbling oneself (‫ כנע‬Niphal), praying (‫ פלל‬Hitpael), seeking (‫בקׁש‬/‫)דרׁש‬, and turning (‫)ׁשוב‬. 27 This observation calls into question the critical caricature of later monarchial and postexilic covenant approaches that there was a shift from vital reciprocal relationship between Yahweh and the people to a sterile unilateral relationship mediated by law and stripped of its reciprocal immediacy. 28 What has happened is rather a shift away from covenant with general commitment to the statutes of law as the dominant idiom for expressing the relationship between Yahweh and the people to a commitment to Yahweh expressed through the Chronicler’s idiom of immediate relationship with general and particular commitments to the renewal of cult and worship. 29 Murray has called this the “revival motif in Chronicles,” which he describes as the “continuous renewing by the religious community of its deep personal commitment to Yhwh through the praxis of the temple and its cult, and its constant drawing on his strength joyfully to face the future.” 30 The removal of covenant terminology must also be seen in light of the broader shift in Chronicles away from a focus on Sinai covenant to either timeless (no covenant or assumed covenant) origins of relationship or covenants associated with the pre-Sinaitic ancestors/post-Sinaitic Davidic monarchy. As has long been noted, the genealogical introduction to Chronicles shapes the reading of the book as a whole. The genealogies assume that Israel has always had a relationship with Yahweh (as noted by 26. See Kelly (2003: 217), who prefers to call this the “message of prayer, repentance and restoration,” as the central theme of 2 Chronicles 10–36. 27. As Kelly (1996: 50), who notes how 2 Chr 7:12b–16a “expresses in nuce the central theological conviction of the work”; cf. Williamson 1982: 225–26. On this vocabulary, see Dillard 1984: 164–72; 1987: 76–80; Kelly 1996: 49–62. 28.  For example, see Mendenhall and Herion (1992: 1:1194), who describe Nehemiah 9–10 in the following way: “By the time of Nehemiah the evolution of the covenant (and of the word bĕrît) had run full course from the actual and constitutive foundation of a community to a theological concept to little more now than a ritual form and legal document. . . . In some respects this transformation marks the end of ‘Israelite religion’ (in all its complexity) and the rise of a distinctive and new religion called ‘Judaism.’” Also see their caricature of Ezra 9–10 (1992: 1:1196). 29.  Nicely expressed by Murray (2000: 95–96), who notes that the agenda of 2 Chr 7:13–15 is not one “that distances Yhwh from Israel as the dispassionate dispenser of a precisely measured retribution, but one that involves him with his people personally, one in which he takes the initiative to move their hearts towards repentance and restoration” (emphasis original); cf. Kelly 2003: 226–27 n. 271. 30.  Murray 2000: 86.

Covenant in Chronicles

405

Japhet for 1 Chronicles 2, 4), one that is traced through kinship structure to the very moment of creation (Adam in 1 Chr 1:1). Interestingly, when reference is made to God’s adherence to a covenant agreement, the covenants in view are related to the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, Jacob/ Israel (1 Chr 16:15–18), 31 in this case a covenant that secured the land as Israel’s inheritance forever, and to David (2 Chr 13:5; 21:7), in these cases securing the right of David’s family to rule over Israel forever. In light of the kinship foundation to the relationship between Yahweh and Israel, it is probably not accidental that the covenants highlighted in the Chronicler’s history are those made with either the community in its prenation state as a ‫ בת־אב‬or to the royal family during its nation statehood. The lack of emphasis on Sinai may be understood against the backdrop of this sociological reality because Sinai is focused on the nation as a whole without reference to the clan structure. Thus, the language of relationship is immediate rather than covenantal, 32 the former more conducive to a vision of relationship in a context in which national identity will be difficult to attain due to imperial forces at work, but in which clan or family identity is certainly possible. The genealogy reveals that this approach to relationship is part of the DNA of Israel anyway. References to covenants with the heads of father houses (Abraham/Isaac/ Jacob or David) keep alive the promises that Israel will one day regain the land as their inheritance and their king as ruler over that inheritance. The language of immediate relationship is linked in 2 Chronicles 7, however, to the temple, identified as both “a house of sacrifice” (7:12) and a place of prayer (7:15). 33 This link between renewal of relationship and temple worship (in sacrifice and word) is evident throughout Chronicles, 31.  Japhet (1989: 81) takes little notice of this reference to covenant in 1 Chronicles 16, assumedly because it appears “simply as part of a psalm which has been transferred intact.” Later tracing the Chronicler’s view of the bond between Israel and the land, she treats this as she does the relationship between Israel and Yahweh, that is, not as related to “a specific act in the past, but a process that constantly renews itself.” However, the change of 1 Kgs 8:34 in 2 Chr 6:25 from “the land which you gave to their fathers” to “the land which you gave to them and to their fathers” suggests that the bond is established in the past and is constantly being renewed. That a both/and approach to this issue is best is seen in 2 Chr 20:7, where God’s gift of the land forever is linked to “the descendants of Abraham your friend,” suggesting that Yahweh’s relationship with this patriarchal figure is key to the land gift enjoyed by every successive generation. 32.  McCarthy (1982: 31–32) claims that the Chronicler’s language is his new way of expressing covenant, rather than merely recognizing that covenantal language has been largely left behind; cf. Kelly 1996: 55–56. 33. See Kelly (1996: 51), who identifies 2 Chr 7:12b and vv. 15–16a as a bracket around this key pericope.

406

Mark J. Boda

as already seen in the review of the covenantal passages above. This connection to temple worship reveals another key strategy of the Chronicler as he reenvisions the relationship between Yahweh and the people. Postexilic Yehud as a conglomeration of clans is encouraged to find its national identity as a community gathered around the temple in Jerusalem. While the genealogies provide a common identity for the variety of family units that populate Yehud and provide a foundation for the inclusion of even more diverse family units, the focus on the temple cult as the appropriate application of immediate relational values offers an activity that would unite the family units. In this way, they are united in genealogical identity, divine relationship, and cultic activity, all possible within the realities of an imperial social context.

Bibliography Bautch, R. J. 2009 Glory and Power, Ritual and Relationship: The Sinai Covenant in the Postexilic Period. Library of the Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Studies 471. New York: T. & T. Clark. Boda, M. J. 1999 Praying the Tradition: The Origin and Use of Tradition in Nehemiah 9. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 277. Berlin: de Gruyter. 2013 Gazing through the Cloud of Incense: Davidic Dynasty and Temple Community in the Chronicler’s Perspective. Pp. 215–45 in The Book of Chronicles and Early Second Temple Historiography, ed. P. S. Evans and T. F. Williams. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Braun, R. L. 1986 1 Chronicles. WBC 14. Waco, TX: Word. Dillard, R. B. 1984 Reward and Punishment in Chronicles: The Theology of Immediate Retribution. Westminster Theological Journal 46: 164–72. Dillard, R. B. 1987 2 Chronicles. Word Biblical Commentary 15. Waco: Word. Hillers, D. R. 1969 Covenant: The History of a Biblical Idea. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Japhet, S. 1989 The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought. Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des Antiken Judentums 9. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 1993 I and II Chronicles: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. Kelly, B. E. 1996 Retribution and Eschatology in Chronicles. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 211. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

Covenant in Chronicles

407

2003 “Retribution” Revisited: Covenant, Grace and Restoration. Pp. 206–27 in Chronicler as Theologian, ed. G. Knoppers, M. P. Graham, and S. L. McKenzie. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 371. London T. & T. Clark. MacDonald, N. 2006 The Literary Criticism and Rhetorical Logic of Deuteronomy i–iv. Vetus Testamentum 56: 203–24. Mason, R. A. 1990 Preaching the Tradition: Homily and Hermeneutics after the Exile. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mayes, A. D. H. 1981 Deuteronomy 4 and the Literary Criticism of Deuteronomy. Journal of Biblical Literature 100: 23–51. McCarthy, D. J. 1982 Covenant and Law in Chronicles–Nehemiah. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 44: 25–44. McKenzie, S. L. 1992 Deuteronomistic History. Pp 160–68 in vol. 2 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday. Mendenhall, G. E., and Herion, G. A. 1992 Covenant. Pp. 1179–1202 in vol. 1 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday. Murray, D. F. 2000 Retribution and Revival: Theological Theory, Religious Praxis, and the Future in Chronicles. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 25: 77–99. Noth, M. 1966 The Laws in the Pentateuch, and Other Studies. London: Oliver & Boyd. Rad, G. von 1966 The Levitical Sermon in the Books of Chronicles. Pp. 267–80 in The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays, trans. E. W. Trueman Dicken. London: Oliver & Boyd. Selman, M. J. 1994 1 Chronicles: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity. Sperling, S. D. 1989 Rethinking Covenant in Late Biblical Books. Biblica 70: 50–73. Williamson, H. G. M. 1977 Eschatology in Chronicles. Tyndale Buletin 28: 115–54. 1982 1 and 2 Chronicles. New Century Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

“The Ark of the Covenant of the Lord” The Place of Covenant in the Chronicler’s Theology Louis C. Jonker University of Stellenbosch

Introduction The concept “covenant” plays a prominent role in Old Testament literature. Although we have come a long way since Eichrodt’s Theologie des Alten Testaments (1961), in which the author suggested that “covenant” is the central concept that forms the key to the theology of the Old Testament, 1 no biblical scholar would deny that the special relationship between two parties expressed with the Hebrew term ‫ ברית‬deserves dedicated study. The term ‫ ברית‬appears 284 times in the Hebrew Bible, expressing a variety of relationships between human agents, but particularly the relationship between Yahweh and the people of Israel. As part of an ongoing investigation into the functioning of the concept “covenant,” the SBL programme unit “Covenant in the Persian Period” seeks to study the diversity and complexity of thought around this concept in the period after the exile and beyond. Various contributions were solicited to correlate the textual data about covenant in the Postexilic Period with what we know about the different social groups that existed in Persian-period Judah and to reflect on how articulations of covenant informed and shaped Judean identity in the Persian period. Author’s note: This article was first presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature held in San Francisco on 19–22 November 2011. I hereby thank Richard Bautch for the invitation to take part in a session on “Covenant in the Persian Era.” 1. Walter Eichrodt chose the concept covenant as center of his Old Testament theology, because it provided for him an appropriate way to demonstrate the inner­coherence between Old and New Testaments. This theological construct dominated, and still dominates in some circles, many subsequent attempts to summarize “the” theology of the Old Testament. Although Eichrodt’s attempt to choose a theological concept from the Old Testament thought-world itself—and not from dogmatic constructs such as theology, anthropology, or soteriology—should be appreciated. However, his formulation of a covenant theology, which focuses on the inner coherence between the Old and New Testaments tended to obscure the unique witnesses of the Hebrew Bible in its socioreligious environments.

409

Louis C. Jonker

410

Table 1.  The Distribution of the Lexeme ‫ ְּבִרית‬in Chronicles Book

Ref.

Parallel

1 Chr 11:3

2 Sam 5:3

Expression “and David made a covenant with them (the elders) in Hebron before Yahweh.”

15:25 (2 Sam 6:12) in combination with “ark”

Parties David Elders of Israel of Yahweh

15:26 (2 Sam 6:13) in combination with “ark”

of Yahweh

15:28 (2 Sam 6:15) in combination with “ark”

of Yahweh

15:29 (2 Sam 6:17) in combination with “ark”

of Yahweh

16:6

in combination with “ark”

of God

16:15 Ps 105:8

“remember his covenant forever”

16:17 Ps 105:10

“an everlasting covenant”

the Lord our God (v. 14) Abraham, Isaac, Jacob (vv. 16–17)

—

16:37 —

in combination with “ark”

of Yahweh

17:1

in combination with “ark”

of Yahweh

(2 Sam 7:2)

22:19 —

in combination with “ark”

of Yahweh

28:2

in combination with “ark”

of Yahweh

—

in combination with “ark”

of Yahweh

2 Chr 5:2

28:18 — 1 Kgs 8:1

in combination with “ark”

of Yahweh

5:7

1 Kgs 8:6

in combination with “ark”

of Yahweh

6:11

1 Kgs 8:21

object in ark: “. . . the ark in which is the covenant of Yahweh”

of Yahweh

6:14

1 Kgs 8:23

“Yahweh, God of Israel, who keeps his covenant with his servants”

Yahweh, God of Israel, servants who walk before Yahweh with all their hearts

13:5

—

“a covenant of salt”

Yahweh, God of Israel David and his sons

“they entered a covenant to seek Yahweh, the God of their fathers”

all Judah and Benjamin (with those who dwelled in Ephraim, Manasseh and Simeon; v. 9) with one another (or, with Yahweh?)

15:12 —

This contribution will specifically look at how covenant functions in some Chronicles texts. My intention is, first, to study the textual data, and second, to relate the data to processes of identity negotiation that were prevalent in the late Persian period (the period I accept as the most likely time of origin of Chronicles). 2 My focus will be on a special category of us2. S. Porter and J. de Roo (2003) investigate how an understanding of “covenant” is witnessed in the apocryphal and New Testament literature.

The Place of Covenant in the Chronicler’s Theology

411

Table 1 (cont.).  The Distribution of the Lexeme ‫ ְּבִרית‬in Chronicles Book

Ref.

Parallel

Expression

Parties

2 Chr 16:3

1 Kgs 15:9

“Let there be a treaty between you and me, as there was between my father and your father.”

16:3

1 Kgs 15:9

“Break your treaty with Baasha, Ben-Hadad, king of king of Israel.” Damascus Baasha, king of Israel

21:7

(2 Kgs 8:19) “the covenant that Yahweh had made with David”

23:1

2 Kgs 11:4

“Jehoiada made a covenant with the captains of the hundreds”

23:3

2 Kgs 11:5

“All the assembly made a covenant with the king in the house of God”

Ben-Hadad, king of Damascus Asa, king of Judah

Yahweh David

All the assembly The king

23:16 2 Kgs 11:17 “Jehoiada made covenant Jehoiada between himself, the people and The people and the king the king” 29:10 —

Hezekiah: “It is in my heart to make a covenant with Yahweh, the God of Israel”

Hezekiah Yahweh, the God of Israel

34:30 2 Kgs 23:2

In combination with “book”

Yahweh (?) People of Israel (?)

34:31 2 Kgs 23:3

“The king made a covenant before Yahweh”

Hezekiah Yahweh

34:31 2 Kgs 23:3

“the words of the covenant that Yahweh (?) were written in this book” People of Israel (?)

34:32 —

“the inhabitants of Jerusalem Inhabitants of Jerusalem did according to the covenant of God of their fathers God, the God of their fathers”

age of the term ‫ ברית‬in Chronicles, namely, where it is used in collocation with the term “ark.” Although the term appears 30 times in Chronicles (see table 1), 3 I am going to concentrate on the very peculiar textual data in twelve of these cases (summarized in table 2). My hypothesis is that a study of these 12 cases could provide special insight into the Chronicler’s understanding of covenant, as well as into how this concept relates to the Chronicler’s overall theological project. I will start my study with some textual observations on the use of covenant in the Chronicler’s ark narrative (1 Chr 13–16). In this section, I will do a synoptic comparison with the Vorlage of Chronicles, and will study 3.  See tables 1 and 2. All concordance searches were done with the Stuttgarter Electronic Study Bible in the Logos 4 environment.

‫‪Louis C. Jonker‬‬

‫‪412‬‬

‫‪Table 2.  “Ark of the Covenant of Yhwh” in Chronicles and its Vorlage‬‬ ‫‪Chronicles‬‬

‫‪Vorlage‬‬ ‫ְ‬ ‫ּמל ְ‬ ‫ֹ‬ ‫ֶך ָּדִוד֮ לֵאמר֒ ּבֵרַ ֣ך יְהָ֗וה‬ ‫ַוּיֻ ַּג֗ד ַל ֶ ֣‬ ‫ֲׁשר־‬ ‫אֶת־ ֵּב֨ית ע ֹ ֵב֤ד אֱדֹם֙ ְואֶת־ּכָל־א ֶ‬ ‫ְ‬ ‫ל ֹ֔ו ַּבעֲבּ֖ור אֲרֹ֣ון ָהאֱל ִֹה֑ים ַו ּ֣יֵלֶך ָּדִו֗ד‬ ‫ַוּיַ ַע ֩ל אֶת־אֲרֹ֨ון ָהאֱל ִֹה֜ים ִמ ֵּב֨ית‬ ‫ע ֹ ֵב֥ד אֱדֹ֛ם ִע֥יר ָּדִו֖ד ְּב ִׂש ְמ ָח ֽה׃‬

‫‪1 Chr‬‬ ‫‪15:25‬‬

‫ָפ֑ים‬ ‫אל ִ‬ ‫ׂש ֵר֣י ָה ֲ‬ ‫ִׂש ָר ֵא֖ל ְו ָ‬ ‫ִקנֵ֥י י ְ‬ ‫ְה֥י ָדִו֛יד ְוז ְ‬ ‫ַוי ִ‬ ‫הַה ְֹֽל ִכ֗ים ְ ֽל ַהעֲלֹ֞ות אֶת־אֲרֹ֧ון ְּבִרית־יְהָו֛ה ִמן־‬ ‫ֵּב֥ית ע ֹ ֵבֽד־אֱדֹ֖ם ְּב ִׂש ְמ ָח ֽה׃ ס‬

‫‪2 Sam‬‬ ‫‪6:12‬‬

‫‪1 Chr‬‬ ‫‪15:26‬‬

‫ֶעזֹ֣ר ָהֽאֱל ִֹה֔ים ֶא֨ת־ה ְַלִו ִּי֔ם נ ֹ ְׂש ֵא֖י אֲרֹ֣ון‬ ‫ְהי֙ ּב ְ‬ ‫ַוֽי ִ‬ ‫ׁש ְב ָע֥ה‬ ‫ָר֖ים ְו ִ‬ ‫ׁש ְב ָע ֽה־פִ‬ ‫ְּבחּ֥ו ִ‬ ‫ְּבִרית־יְהָו ֑ה ַו ִּיז ְ‬ ‫ֵילֽים׃‬ ‫א ִ‬

‫‪2 Sam‬‬ ‫‪6:13‬‬

‫ְה֗י ִּכ֧י ָצעֲדּ֛ו נ ֹ ְׂש ֵא֥י אֲרֹון־יְהָו֖ה‬ ‫ַוי ִ‬ ‫ּומִרֽיא׃‬ ‫ָד֑ים ַו ִּי ְז ַּב֥ח ׁשֹ֖ור ְ‬ ‫ּׁש֣ה ְצע ִ‬ ‫ׁש ָ‬ ‫ִ‬

‫‪1 Chr‬‬ ‫‪15:28‬‬

‫ֲלים֙ אֶת־אֲרֹ֣ון ְּבִרית־יְהָ֔וה‬ ‫ִׂש ָר ֵא֗ל ַמע ִ‬ ‫ְוכָל־י ְ‬ ‫ּתיִם‬ ‫ּוב ְמ ִצ ְל ָ ֑‬ ‫ּובק ֹ֣ול ׁשֹו ָ֔פר ּו ַבחֲצ ֹ ְצרֹ֖ות ִ‬ ‫ִּב ְתרּו ָעה֙ ְ‬ ‫ָל֖ים ְו ִכּנֹרֹֽות׃‬ ‫ַׁש ִמ ִע֕ים ִּב ְנב ִ‬ ‫מְ‬

‫‪2 Sam‬‬ ‫‪6:15‬‬

‫ֲל֖ים אֶת־‬ ‫ִׂש ָר ֵא֔ל ַמע ִ‬ ‫ְו ָדִוד֙ ְוכָל־ ֵּב֣ית י ְ‬ ‫ּובק ֹ֥ול ׁשֹו ָפ ֽר׃‬ ‫אֲרֹ֣ון יְהָו ֑ה ִּב ְתרּו ָע֖ה ְ‬

‫‪1 Chr‬‬ ‫‪15:29‬‬

‫ּומי ַכ֨ל‬ ‫ַד־ע֣יר ָּדִו֑יד ִ‬ ‫ְה֗י אֲרֹון֙ ְּבִר֣ית יְהָ֔וה ָּב֖א ע ִ‬ ‫ַוי ִ‬ ‫ִׁש ְק ָפ֣ה׀ ְּב ַע֣ד ַהחַּל ֹ֗ון וַּתֵ ֨רֶא אֶת־‬ ‫ַת־ׁשאּ֜ול נ ְ‬ ‫ּב ָ‬ ‫ּמל ְ‬ ‫ַּתבֶז לֹ֖ו ְּב ִל ָּב ּֽה׃ פ‬ ‫ּומׂשַ ֵח֔ק ו ִ ֥‬ ‫ֶך ָּדִויד֙ ְמרַ ֵּק֣ד ְ‬ ‫ַה ֶ ֤‬

‫ָב֜אּו אֶת־אֲרֹ֣ון יְהָ֗וה ַוּי ִַּצ֤גּו אֹתֹו֙‬ ‫‪ַ 2 Sam‬וּי ִ‬ ‫ִּב ְמקֹומ ֹ֔ו ְּבת ֹ ְ‬ ‫ֲׁש֥ר נָטָה־‬ ‫֣וך הָאֹ֔הֶל א ֶ‬ ‫‪6:17‬‬ ‫לֹ֖ו ָּדִו֑ד ַו ּ֨יַעַל ָּדִו֥ד עֹלֹ֛ות ִל ְפנֵ֥י יְהָו֖ה‬ ‫ָמֽים׃‬ ‫ּוׁשל ִ‬ ‫ְ‬

‫‪1 Chr‬‬ ‫ה ִנ֑ים ַּבחֲצ ֹ ְצרֹ֣ות ָּת ִמ֔יד ִל ְפנֵ֖י‬ ‫חזִי ֵא֖ל הַּכ ֲֹ‬ ‫ּובנָיָ֥הּו ְוי ֲַ‬ ‫ְ‬ ‫‪ 16:6‬אֲרֹ֥ון ְּבִרית־ ָהאֱל ִֹהֽים׃‬

‫—‬

‫—‬

‫ָב־ׁשם ִל ְפנֵי֙ אֲרֹ֣ון ְּבִרית־יְהָ֔וה ְל ָא ָס֖ף‬ ‫‪ַ 1 Chr‬ו ּֽיַעֲז ָ֗‬ ‫ׁש ֵר֞ת ִל ְפנֵ֧י ָהאָרֹ֛ון ָּת ִמ֖יד ִל ְדבַר־יֹ֥ום‬ ‫ּול ֶא ָח ֑יו ְל ָ‬ ‫ְ‬ ‫‪16:37‬‬ ‫ְּביֹומֹֽו׃‬

‫—‬

‫—‬

‫‪1 Chr‬‬ ‫‪17:1‬‬

‫ֲׁש֛ר יָׁשַ ֥ב ָּדִו֖יד ְּבבֵית ֹו֑ וַּיֹ֨אמֶר ָּדִו֜יד‬ ‫ְה֕י ַּכא ֶ‬ ‫ַוי ִ‬ ‫א ָר ִז֔ים‬ ‫ׁשב֙ ְּב ֵב֣ית ָהֽ ֲ‬ ‫ָב֗יא ִהּנֵ֨ה אָנ ִֹכ֤י יֹו ֵ‬ ‫ָת֣ן ַהּנ ִ‬ ‫אֶל־נ ָ‬ ‫ַואֲרֹ֥ון ְּבִרית־יְהָו֖ה ּתַ ֥חַת יְִריעֹֽות׃‬

‫ׁש ֶ֔כם ִל ְדרֹ֖וׁש לַיהָו֣ה‬ ‫‪ 1 Chr‬ע ַָּ֗תה ְּתנּ֤ו ְלב ְַב ֶכם֙ ְונ ְַפ ְ‬ ‫ֶת־מ ְקּדַ ׁש֙ יְהָו֣ה ָהֽאֱל ִֹה֔ים‬ ‫ּובנּו֙ א ִ‬ ‫‪ 22:19‬אֱלֹהֵי ֶכ ֑ם ְוקּ֗ומּו ְ‬ ‫ּוכ ֵלי֙ ק ֶֹ֣דׁש‬ ‫ָב֞יא אֶת־אֲרֹ֣ון ְּבִרית־יְהָ֗וה ְ‬ ‫ְלה ִ‬ ‫ִבנֶ֥ה ְלׁשֵם־יְהָו ֽה׃ פ‬ ‫ָהֽאֱל ִֹה֔ים ַל ַּב֖יִת ַהּנ ְ‬ ‫ּמל ְ‬ ‫ׁש ָמעּ֖ונִי‬ ‫ֶך֙ עַל־רַ ְג ָ֔ליו וַּיֹ֕אמֶר ְ‬ ‫‪ַ 1 Chr‬וּיָ ָ֨קם ָּדִו֤יד ַה ֶ ֙‬ ‫ָב֡י ִל ְבנֹות֩ ֵּב֨ית ְמנּו ָח֜ה‬ ‫ם־לב ִ‬ ‫א ִנ֣י ִע ְ‬ ‫‪ַ 28:2‬א ַח֣י ְוע ִַּמ֑י ֲ‬ ‫ַלאֲרֹ֣ון ְּבִרית־יְהָ֗וה ְו ַלהֲדֹם֙ רַ ְג ֵל֣י אֱל ֹ ֵה֔ינּו‬ ‫֖ותי ִל ְבנֹֽות׃‬ ‫ֲכינ ֹ ִ‬ ‫ַוה ִ‬ ‫‪1 Chr‬‬ ‫ּולתַ ְב ִנ֣ית‬ ‫ׁש ָק֑ל ְ‬ ‫ֻּק֖ק ּב ִַּמ ְ‬ ‫ְ‬ ‫ּול ִמ ְז ַּב֧ח ה ְַּקט֛ ֹרֶת זָ ָה֥ב ְמז ָ‬ ‫ֻב֤ים זָ ָהב֙ ְלפ ְֹ֣ר ִׂש֔ים ְוס ְֹכ ִכ֖ים עַל־‬ ‫ֶר ָּכ ָ֗בה ה ְַּכר ִ‬ ‫‪ַ 28:18‬הּמ ְ‬ ‫אֲרֹ֥ון ְּבִרית־יְהָו ֽה׃‬ ‫ִׂש ָר ֵא֗ל ְואֶת־ּכָל־‬ ‫ִקנֵ֣י י ְ‬ ‫ׁשלֹמֹ֜ה אֶת־ז ְ‬ ‫‪ָ 2 Chr‬אז֩ י ְַק ֵה֨יל ְ‬ ‫ִׂש ָר ֵא֖ל‬ ‫ְׂשי ֵא֧י ָהאָבֹ֛ות ִל ְבנֵ֥י י ְ‬ ‫ׁש֨י ַהּמַּטֹ֜ות נ ִ‬ ‫‪ָ 5:2‬רא ֵ‬ ‫ְרּוׁש ִָל ֑ם ְ ֽל ַהעֲלֹ֞ות אֶת־אֲרֹ֧ון ְּבִרית־יְהָו֛ה‬ ‫אֶל־י ָ‬ ‫מ ִֵע֥יר ָּדִו֖יד ִה֥יא ִצּיֹֽון׃‬ ‫‪2 Chr‬‬ ‫‪5:7‬‬

‫הנִים אֶת־אֲרֹ֨ון ְּבִרית־יְהָו֧ה אֶל־‬ ‫ָב֣יאּו ַהּ֠כ ֲֹ‬ ‫ַוּי ִ‬ ‫ׁש֑ים‬ ‫ֶל־ּד ִב֥יר ַה ַּב֖יִת אֶל־ק ֶֹ֣דׁש ה ְַּק ָד ִ‬ ‫ְמק ֹומֹ֛ו א ְ‬ ‫רּובֽים׃‬ ‫אֶל־ּתַ ֖חַת ַּכ ְנ ֵפ֥י ה ְַּכ ִ‬

‫ּמל ְ‬ ‫ָב֔יא ְר ֵא֣ה‬ ‫ָת֣ן ַהּנ ִ‬ ‫ֶך֙ אֶל־נ ָ‬ ‫‪ 2 Sam‬וַּיֹ֤אמֶר ַה ֶ ֙‬ ‫א ָר ִז֑ים ַֽואֲרֹון֙‬ ‫ׁש֖ב ְּב ֵב֣ית ֲ‬ ‫‪ָ֔ 7:2‬נא אָנ ִֹכ֥י יֹו ֵ‬ ‫ׁש֖ב ְּבת ֹ ְ‬ ‫֥וך ַהיְִרי ָע ֽה׃‬ ‫ָהֽאֱל ִֹה֔ים י ֹ ֵ‬ ‫—‬

‫—‬

‫—‬

‫—‬

‫—‬ ‫—‬ ‫ִׂש ָר ֵא֡ל‬ ‫ִקנֵ֣י י ְ‬ ‫ׁשלֹמֹ֣ה אֶת־ז ְ‬ ‫‪ָ 1 Kgs‬א֣ז י ְַק ֵה֣ל ְ‬ ‫ְׂשי ֵא֨י‬ ‫ׁש֣י ַהּמַּטֹות֩ נ ִ‬ ‫‪ 8:1‬אֶת־ּכָל־ ָרא ֵ‬ ‫ּמל ְ‬ ‫ֶך‬ ‫ִׂש ָר ֵא֛ל אֶל־ ַה ֶ ֥‬ ‫ָהאָבֹ֜ות ִל ְבנֵ֧י י ְ‬ ‫ְרּוׁש ִָל ֑ם ְ ֽל ַהעֲלֹ֞ות אֶת־אֲרֹ֧ון‬ ‫ׁשלֹמֹ֖ה י ָ‬ ‫ְ‬ ‫ְּבִרית־יְהָו֛ה מ ִֵע֥יר ָּדִו֖ד ִה֥יא ִצּיֹֽון׃‬ ‫הנִים אֶת־אֲרֹ֨ון ְּבִרית־‬ ‫ָב֣אּו ַהּ֠כ ֲֹ‬ ‫‪ַ 1 Kgs‬וּי ִ‬ ‫ּביִת‬ ‫ֶל־ּד ִב֥יר ַה ַ ֖‬ ‫ֶל־מק ֹומֹ֛ו א ְ‬ ‫‪ 8:6‬יְהָו֧ה א ְ‬ ‫ׁש֑ים אֶל־ּתַ ֖חַת ַּכ ְנ ֵפ֥י‬ ‫אֶל־ק ֶֹ֣דׁש הֳַּק ָד ִ‬ ‫רּובֽים׃‬ ‫ה ְַּכ ִ‬

‫‪the term in the wider context of Chronicles. In the next section, I will‬‬ ‫‪provide a brief history of research on the use of the expression “Ark of the‬‬ ‫‪Covenant” in Chronicles. Methodological insights from this section will‬‬

The Place of Covenant in the Chronicler’s Theology

413

be used in the following part to provide an interpretation of how covenant functions in the Chronicler’s ark narrative. Before concluding, I will relate the observed data and textual interpretation to the processes of identity negotiation (and in particular, processes of self-categorization) that were prevalent in Jerusalem in the final years of Persian domination.

Covenant in the Chronicler’s Ark Narrative I have indicated above that the word ‫ ברית‬is used in collocation with “ark” (‫ ארון‬in Hebrew) in 12 of the 30 cases in Chronicles (see table 2 again). The full expression used in all of these 12 cases (except one, 1 Chr 16:6) is ‫“( ארון ברית יהוה‬the Ark of the Covenant of Yahweh”). In 1 Chr 16:6, a variation appears with the divine name ‫ אלהים‬instead of ‫יהוה‬. The prominence of this expression (6 out of 12) in 1 Chr 15–16 (which form part of the Chronicler’s ark narrative) cannot be missed. Also significant is the fact that the expression “the Ark of the Covenant of Yahweh/Elohim” appears exclusively in the narratives about David and Solomon, and therefore not in the accounts of Judah’s kings in 2 Chronicles 10–36. A synoptic comparison with the Vorlage of Chronicles in Samuel–Kings reveals interesting data (see table 2). Only in two cases, namely, the two appearances in the Solomon narrative (2 Chr 5:2, 7 || 1 Kgs 8:1, 6), was the full phrase taken over from the Vorlage. 4 Both these verses are part of the narrative of the bringing of “the Ark of the Covenant of Yahweh” from the City of David to the freshly built temple. In five cases, the phrase forms part of the Chronicler’s own material (1 Chr 16:6 where the divine name ‫ אלהים‬appears instead of ‫ ;יהוה‬16:37; 22:19: 28:2, 18). In the remaining five cases (1 Chr 15:25, 26, 28, 29; 17:1—all but the last in the Chronicler’s ark narrative), the word ‫“( ברית‬covenant”) was inserted into the shorter expression ‫ אלהים‬/ ‫ארון יהוה‬, which is used in the Vorlage. 5 In two cases (1 Chr 15:25; 17:1) the divine name ‫ אלהים‬was substituted with ‫יהוה‬. 6 The usage of the full expression “the Ark of the Covenant of Yahweh” is remarkable, because there were no compelling formal reasons for the Chronicler to use the full collocation. The shorter expressions ‫ ארון יהוה‬and ‫ ארון אלהים‬both appear elsewhere in Chronicles (the first in 1 Chr 15:3, 4.  LXX 3 Kgdms 8:1 confirms the MT reading of 1 Kgs 8:1, but in 1 Kgs 8:6 the LXX omits the equivalent of the phrase “of the covenant of Yahweh.” 5.  In four of the five cases (2 Sam 6:12, 15, 17; 7:2) LXX 3 Kingdoms confirms the MT readings. In one case, 2 Sam 6:13, LXX 3 Kingdoms omitted the reference to Yahweh. However, in all these cases, like in MT, no reference is made to the covenant. These data therefore confirm the uniqueness of the Chronicler’s readings of these texts. 6.  In these cases, LXX 3 Kgdms 6:12 and 7:2 confirm the MT readings in 2 Sam 6:12 and 7:2. The Chronicler’s changes are therefore unique.

Louis C. Jonker

414

Table 3.  The Distribution of the Lexeme ‫( אֲרֹון‬with/without Combinations) in the Hebrew Bible ‫)הָ(אֲרֹון‬ Gen 50:26 Exod 25:10 Exod 25:14 (2×) Exod 25:15 Exod 25:16 Exod 25:21 (2×) Exod 35:12 Exod 37:1 Exod 37:5 (2×) Exod 40:3 Exod 40:20 (3×) Exod 40:21 Lev 16:2 Num 3:31 Num 10:35 Deut 10:1 Deut 10:2 Deut 10:3 Deut 10:5 Josh 3:15 (2×) Josh 4:10 Josh 6:4 Josh 6:9 Josh 8:33 1 Sam 6:13 1 Sam 7:2 2 Sam 6:4 2 Sam 11:11 1 Kgs 8:3 1 Kgs 8:5 1 Kgs 8:7 (2×) 1 Kgs 8:9

1 Kgs 8:21 2 Kgs 12:10 2 Kgs 12:11 Ps 132:8 1 Chr 6:16 1 Chr 13:9 1 Chr 13:10 1 Chr 13:13 1 Chr 15:23 1 Chr 15:24 1 Chr 15:27 1 Chr 16:37 2 Chr 5:4 2 Chr 5:5 2 Chr 5:6 2 Chr 5:8 (2×) 2 Chr 5:9 2 Chr 5:10 2 Chr 6:11 2 Chr 6:41 2 Chr 24:8 2 Chr 24:10 2 Chr 24:11 (2×) 2 Chr 35:3 (‫)אֲרֹון־הַּק ֶֹדׁש‬

‫אֲרֹון ָהעֵדּות‬ Exod 25:22 Exod 26:33 Exod 26:34 Exod 30:6 Exod 30:26 Exod 31:7 (‫) ָהאָרֹן ָל ֵעדֻת‬ Exod 39:35 Exod 40:3 Exod 40:5 Exod 40:21 Num 4:5 Num 7:89 Josh 4:16

‫אֲרֹון יְהוָה‬ Josh 3:13 Josh 4:5 Josh 4:11 Josh 6:6 Josh 6:7 Josh 6:11 Josh 6:12 Josh 6:13 (2×) Josh 7:6 1 Sam 4:6 1 Sam 5:3 1 Sam 5:4 1 Sam 6:1 1 Sam 6:2 1 Sam 6:8 1 Sam 6:11 1 Sam 6:15 1 Sam 6:18 1 Sam 6:19 1 Sam 6:21 1 Sam 7:1 (2×) 2 Sam 6:9 2 Sam 6:10 2 Sam 6:11 2 Sam 6:13 2 Sam 6:15 2 Sam 6:16 2 Sam 6:17 1 Kgs 2:26 1 Kgs 8:4 1 Chr 15:3 1 Chr 15:12 1 Chr 15:14 1 Chr 16:4 2 Chr 8:11

‫)הָ(אֲרֹון אֱל ִֹהים‬ 1 Sam 3:3 1 Sam 4:11 1 Sam 4:13 1 Sam 4:17 1 Sam 4:18 1 Sam 4:19 1 Sam 4:21 1 Sam 4:22 1 Sam 5:1 1 Sam 5:2 1 Sam 5:10 (2×) 1 Sam 14:18 (2×) 2 Sam 6:2 2 Sam 6:3 2 Sam 6:4 2 Sam 6:6 2 Sam 6:7 2 Sam 6:12 (2×) 2 Sam 7:2 2 Sam 15:24 2 Sam 15:25 2 Sam 15:29 1 Chr 13:3 1 Chr 13:5 1 Chr 13:6 1 Chr 13:7 1 Chr 13:12 1 Chr 13:14 1 Chr 15:1 1 Chr 15:2 1 Chr 15:15 1 Chr 15:24 1 Chr 16:1 2 Chr 1:4

12, 14; 16:4; 2 Chr 8:11, and the latter in 1 Chr 13:3, 5, 6, 7, 12, 14; 15:1, 2, 15, 24; 16:1; 2 Chr 1:4; see table 3). It therefore seems that the insertion of ‫ ברית‬into the expression (or alternatively, the usage of the full expression in the Chronicler’s own material) in the ark narrative probably signifies some special rhetorical function, which will form the focus of my further study below. The full expression “the Ark of the Covenant of Yahweh” appears in 19 other places in the Hebrew Bible (see table 3—Num 10:33; 14:44; Deut 10:8; 31:9; 31:25, 26; Josh 3:3, 17; 4:7, 18; 6:8; 8:33; 1 Sam 4:3, 4, 5; 1 Kgs 6:19; Jer 3:16; as well as the two above-mentioned instances in 1 Kgs 8:1, 6, which were taken over by the Chronicler). These data will also be

The Place of Covenant in the Chronicler’s Theology

415

Table 3 (cont.).  The Distribution of the Lexeme ‫( אֲרֹון‬with/without Combinations) in the Hebrew Bible ‫ִׂש ָראֵל‬ ְ ‫אֲרֹון אֱלֹהֵי י‬ 1 Sam 5:7 1 Sam 5:8 (3×) 1 Sam 5:10 1 Sam 5:11 1 Sam 6:3

‫אֲרֹון ה ְַּבִרית‬ Josh 3:6 (2x) Josh 3:8 Josh 3:11 Josh 3:14 Josh 4:9 Josh 6:6

‫אֲרֹון ְּבִרית־יְהוָה‬ Num 10:33 Num 14:44 Deut 10:8 Deut 31:9 Deut 31:25 Deut 31:26 Josh 3:3 Josh 3:17 Josh 4:7 Josh 4:18 Josh 6:8 Josh 8:33 1 Sam 4:3 1 Sam 4:4 1 Sam 4:5 1 Kgs 3:15 (‫)אֲרֹ֣ון ְּבִרית־אֲדֹנָי‬ 1 Kgs 6:19 1 Kgs 8:1 1 Kgs 8:6 Jer 3:16 1 Chr 15:25 1 Chr 15:26 1 Chr 15:28 1 Chr 15:29 1 Chr 16:37 1 Chr 17:1 1 Chr 22:19 1 Chr 28:2 1 Chr 28:18 2 Chr 5:2 2 Chr 5:7

‫אֲרֹון ְּבִרית ָהאֱל ִֹהים‬ Jdg 20:27 1 Sam 4:4 2 Sam 15:24 1 Chr 16:6

considered below when we try to figure out why the Chronicler chose to use the full expression in his ark narrative. Before we come to our own interpretation, it is appropriate to look at other studies that dealt with the Chronicler’s Ark terminology.

A Brief History of Research on the Chronicler’s Ark Terminology It is remarkable that the majority of the newer commentaries on Chronicles (published since 2000) do not make any mention of the fact that the Chronicler constantly inserted the word ‫ ברית‬into the textual material in 1 Chronicles 15–16, which was taken over from the source text

416

Louis C. Jonker

in 2 Samuel­ 6. 7 Tuell, McKenzie, Dirksen, and Boda do not discuss this matter­at all, 8 while Knoppers briefly comments on 1 Chr 15:25 in the following way: “That the Chronicler deliberately changed Samuel’s terminology . . . is doubtful, because he does not show any consistent preference for this locution elsewhere.” 9 Klein focuses on this peculiarity, however, when he indicates, Only now, as the account of the last stage of the ark’s movement begins, and with the Levites finally carrying the ark, does the Chronicler call it the ‘ark of the covenant of Yahweh’ in harmony with Deut 10:8. Six of the twelve uses of this phrase in Chronicles appear in this context. . . . Where the passages have a parallel in the Vorlage, in each case the Chronicler added the word “covenant.” For the Chronicler the ark is the symbol of the covenant relationship between Yahweh and Israel and also the symbol of Yahweh’s presence in Jerusalem. 10

A study that has been dedicated exclusively to the Chronicler’s use of the collocation of the expression ‫ ארון ברית יהוה‬is that by Sabine van den Eynde. 11 Although hers is not a well-written article, she comes to important conclusions in this study. First, she indicates that “the addition of the term ‫ ברית‬in the name of the ark of God, may indicate a literary-­theological concern of the Chronicler.” 12 She elaborates on this point as follows: Though this collocation had clearly become an epithet at free disposal of the Chronicler, it is used very carefully and hence is more than merely a matter of style (against Japhet). I therefore proposed to interpret this collocation in line with the function of the ark in Chronicles on the one hand, and against the background of the divine ‫ ברית‬in these books on the other. 13

Second, van den Eynde indicates that the link between the ark and the theme of kingship is important. 14 She states, The stories of the ark structure the overall story and provide a setting for the development of Chronicler’s view on kingship. The usage of ‫ ברית‬in the naming of the ark can meaningfully be interpreted against the back7.  The same applies to the older commentary of S. Japhet (1993, 291–324). 8. See S. S. Tuell 2001: 54–70; S. L. McKenzie 2004: 142–53; P. B. Dirksen 2005; 204–29; M. J. Boda 2010; 137–51. 9.  Knoppers 2004: 610. 10.  Klein 2006: 356. 11.  Van den Eynde 2001: 422–30. 12.  Van den Eynde 2001: 429. 13.  Van den Eynde 2001: 430. 14. Bautch 2009.

The Place of Covenant in the Chronicler’s Theology

417

ground of the divine ‫ ברית‬promises to David. Both the additions and adaptations of the collocation and of the references to the divine ‫ברית‬ promises to David are linked with David. 15

Ralph Klein differs from van den Eynde’s last-mentioned point of view. He indicates in his discussion of the addition of the word covenant in 1 Chr 15:25 the following: I do not think her thesis that this term must be connected to the covenantal promises to David is convincing. Rather, the ark functions to demonstrate Yahweh’s presence in the sanctuary . . . and it is called ‘the ark of the covenant’ because it contains the two tablets of the law . . . . The ark in Chronicles combines therefore the older meaning of the ark as symbolizing God’s presence and the Deuteronomic interpretation that it is a box to hold the tablets of the law, without Deuteronomy’s polemic against the view of the ark as symbolizing God’s presence. (2006: 356 n. 50)

Another study that does not deal exclusively with the peculiar use of terminology in Chronicles, but rather with the Chronicler’s ark narrative as a whole, is the older study by Tamara Eskenazi. 16 She studied 1 Chronicles 13–16 by tracing several literary devices that the Chronicler used to articulate his interest. She also focuses on the “ark” as Leitwort in the narrative, and particularly one specific aspect: Until the Levites carry the ark, it is identified as the ark of God or ark of Yhwh. Once the Levites are specifically appointed to carry the ark and actually do so, the terminology changes. Now, for the first time in Chronicles, the “ark of the covenant” occurs. The transformation takes place in 15:25. Not only does the term “ark of the covenant of Yhwh” suddenly appear, but it also recurs with astonishing frequency: four times in the immediate four verses. . . . Indeed, of the twelve occurrences of the expression “ark of the covenant” in all of Chronicles, six are concentrated in our section, after the Levites carry the ark and bring it to Jerusalem. 17

Eskenazi continues to formulate her theory on this rather dramatic transformation of the ark into the ark of the covenant: I suggest that at the surface level of the text, the Levites—not the ark itself—are perceived as the actual bearers of the covenant. Only when 15.  Van den Eynde 2001: 430. 16. T. Eskenazi 1995. For further broader overviews of studies on the Ark, see Seow 1996: 387–93; Bodner 2006: 169–97. 17.  Eskenazi 1995: 270, emphasis original.

418

Louis C. Jonker

the two combine—when the Levites and the ark meet—does the ark constitute a covenantal symbol. . . . it is inevitable that one recognize the Levites, not the ark alone, as the vehicle of God’s covenant. 18

In this brief literature overview, different positions emerged. 19 On the one side of the spectrum is Knoppers, who does not see any deliberate action on the side of the Chronicler in his usage of covenant terminology. On the other side are Eskenazi, van den Eynde, and Klein, who all see the Chronicler’s insertion of the term ‫ ברית‬as a deliberate attempt to make some connections on a literary level. These three scholars differ, however, on what connection the Chronicler in fact tries to make. Eskenazi sees a link between covenant and Levites, van den Eynde between covenant and (David’s) kingship, and Klein between covenant and the presence of Yahweh in the cultic center. In order to weigh these different viewpoints and to formulate my own position, I will proceed to combine a variety of insights on 1 Chronicles 13–16, as well as to import a historical dimension into the discussion.

Combining Insights on 1 Chronicles 13–16 Without going into a detailed analysis here, I will start with a brief overview of the composition and structure of 1 Chronicles 13–16. The four chapters under discussion in this section are often taken as a unit that is traditionally referred to as the “ark narrative.” Although there are different scholarly views on the existence of this ark narrative and its divisions, the contents of these chapters deal mainly with the bringing of the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem. The exception is chap. 14 (which was taken over from the source text 2 Sam 5:11–25). This chapter deals with seemingly unrelated matters. Some scholars have suggested the existence of a precanonical ark narrative that can be witnessed in all or parts of 1 Samuel 4–6 and 2 Samuel 6. 20 The Chronicler would then also have made use of this precanonical source for his construction of 1 Chronicles 13–16. It is uncertain whether this 18.  Eskenazi 1995: 270–71. 19.  A study to which I unfortunately could not gain access during the preparation of this articls is R. Rezetko 2007. Rezetko postulates that the Chronicler’s version of the ark narrative in 1 Chronicles 13, 15–16 is more original than the version in 2 Samuel 6. 20. L. Rost was the first to postulate the existence of an independent ark narrative that can be witnessed in 1 Sam 4–6, and that can be dated to the late Davidic or early Solomonic era. See L. Rost 1926. Others who have followed in these lines are: F. Schicklberger (1973), A. F. Campbell (1975), P. D. Miller, and J. J. M. Roberts (1977). For a good summary of more recent studies on the ark narrative, see Bodner 2006.

The Place of Covenant in the Chronicler’s Theology

419

hypothesis holds true. However, one may assume that the Chronicler made use of the Samuel version of this narrative, selecting material that supported his cause. The information in 1 Samuel 4–6 was omitted by the Chronicler and he has concentrated his version on 2 Samuel 6. In terms of the Chronicler’s version, 1 Chronicles 14 poses a problem for biblical scholarship because it is seemingly unrelated to the previous and following two chapters. 21 It furthermore quotes from 2 Samuel 5, although 2 Samuel 6 has been quoted already in 1 Chronicles 13. This and other problems led John Wright, for example, to conclude that the existence of an ark narrative, running from 1 Chronicles 13–16, is negated by “the intrusive role of 1 Chronicles 14.” 22 Wright sees 1 Chr 14:2 as the nexus between two greater narratives, the one running from 10:1–14:2 (“The Rise of the Founding Father”), the other from 14:3– 22:1 (“The Reign of the Founding Father”). Tamara Eskenazi, however, came to another conclusion. On the basis of a literary analysis of, among other things, verbal and compositional patterns, she comes to the conclusion that the Chronicler’s ark narrative highlights the following themes: “1. The utmost importance of the ark in particular and the cult in general; 2. The wide-ranging participation by the people of Israel in the cult and the life of the nation; 3. The importance, beauty, and joy of the cult; 4. The unique role and significance of the Levites.” 23 She divides the narrative as follows on the basis of her literary analysis: 13:1–4 (“Objective defined: to bring the ark to Jerusalem”); 13:5–15:29 (“Process of actualization: the transfer of the ark”); and 16:1– 43 (“Objective reached: celebration of the ark’s arrival in Jerusalem”). Although there is merit in Wright’s arguments about chap. 14, and although Eskenazi’s literary arguments for unity are sometimes unconvincing, it remains unlikely that the Chronicler envisioned chaps. 13 and 15– 16, respectively, as separate units. The fact that 2 Samuel 6 was quoted in 21.  The Chronicler made extensive use of source material known from other biblical records. 2 Sam 5:11–25 form the basis for the Chronicler’s 14:1–16 (with 14:17 being the Chronicler’s own material). The Chronicler furthermore used 2 Sam 6:1–23, but in a peculiar way. The Chronicler used vv. 1–11 of 2 Sam 6 in his chap. 13 (in 13:5–14). In doing so, the sequence of 2 Samuel was changed, starting with the material from 2 Sam 6 in chap. 13 and then following it up with material from 2 Sam 5 in chap. 14. The rest of 2 Sam 6 was used at the end of chap. 15 and the beginning of chap. 16 (in 15:25–16:3, parallel to 2 Sam 6:12–19a) as well as at the end of chap. 16 (in 16:43, parallel to 2 Sam 6:19b–20a). Some small sections of the source material in 2 Sam 5 and 6 were omitted, namely, 2 Sam 6:12a and 6:20b–23, which have no parallel in Chronicles. 22.  J. W. Wright 1998: 45–59, here, p. 47. 23.  Eskenazi 1995: 262.

420

Louis C. Jonker

both these sections points in the direction of some sort of a compositional unity at least. In my opinion, the peculiar position of chap. 14 should be explained in another way. It might be that chap. 14 (quoting from 2 Sam 5:11–25) was detached from its original position after 1 Chr 11:9 (quoting from 2 Sam 5:1–3, 6–10). There the content of chap. 14 would have made good sense. If chap. 13 was directly followed by chaps. 15–16, this would equally have created a direct connection with the unsuccessful attempt to bring the ark to Jerusalem (in chap. 13) followed by the further preparations and final bringing of the ark (in chap. 15). However, because there is no additional support for this sort of textual order in any of the other versions, this proposal remains hypothetical. What remains plausible, however, is the explanation of the present position of chap. 14 as a deliberate attempt by the Chronicler to present the bringing of the ark to Jerusalem on the one hand and the capturing of the city on the other, as David’s first acts as king after his coronation. 24 As Klein puts it: In Chronicles, the transfer of the ark to Jerusalem is David’s first act as king after his coronation in 11:1–3 // 2 Sam 5:1–3 and his capture of Jerusalem in 11:4–9 // 2 Sam 5:6–10. This provides one of several reasons why the Chronicler shifts 2 Sam 5:11–25 and its account of David’s building himself a house, the list of his family, and the account of his battles with the Philistines to a position between the two attempts to bring the ark to Jerusalem (at 1 Chr 14:1–17) rather than its position in 2 Samuel, where it precedes the first attempt to bring the ark to Jerusalem. 25

Let me summarize the insights from our composition-historical discussion thus far. (1) The compositional structure of the Chronicler’s ark narrative emphasizes that chaps. 13 and 15–16 stand in narrative tension 24.  Although there might be good (compositional-historical) reasons to transpose this chapter to another position, the effect of the present form of the text is to provide an interlude during which the significance of the previous episode can be digested by the reader, but also to prepare the way for the successful bringing of the ark to Jerusalem. This “two-stage” construction can also be seen in two other related and significant events. We see (later in the David-Solomon narrative) that the Chronicler deliberately described David’s reign as a time of preparation for the building of the temple under­Solomon. In the history of the kings of Judah, we see a similar construction with the Passover celebrations during Hezekiah’s reign that had to be postponed, with the “right” celebration only taking place during the time of Josiah. The Chronicler thereby closely associated these three themes, namely, the ark of the covenant, the temple, and the Passover celebration. 25.  Klein 2006: 330.

The Place of Covenant in the Chronicler’s Theology

421

with one another (contrasting the unsuccessful and successful attempts to bring the Ark to Jerusalem). 26 (2) The swopping around of the material of the Vorlage to present chap. 13 before chap. 14 emphasizes that bringing the ark to Jerusalem was David’s first act after becoming king and capturing the city. With regard to 1 Chronicles 15–16, where half of the instances of the phrase “the Ark of the covenant of Yahweh” are located, the following should be noted: the actual bringing of the Ark to Jerusalem comprises only a small part of the narrative (15:25–16:3), with the remainder of chaps. 15 and 16 dedicated to descriptions of David’s preparations, as well as the appointment of clergy and other staff to minister before the ark. The Chronicler’s use of source material is quite interesting here (see table 4). It seems that his usage of 2 Samuel 6 was intended to enclose the whole episode. As we have seen, the actual ark procession is described in 1 Chr 15:25–16:3 (with 2 Sam 6:12–19a as parallel), and the conclusion of the episode is narrated in 16:43 (with 2 Sam 6:19b–20a as parallel). 27 Three other sections are enclosed by these quotations from 2 Samuel 6: first, in 16:4–7 (without parallel in other biblical literature) the appointment of singers to praise Yahweh before the Ark; second, a song of praise sung by the Levites (composed from three excerpts from the Psalter); 28 26.  The ark narrative in 1 Chronicles 13–16 is, as we saw above, full of theological significance. It starts with a first attempt to bring the ark to Jerusalem, but this attempt was aborted because of the Uzzah incident. This incident highlights that bringing the ark to Jerusalem is a serious matter that may not be approached in a simply human way. The failure indicated in chap. 13 contrasts with the successful attempt narrated in chaps. 15–16. Whereas the first attempt is portrayed as an impulsive move based on human effort, the second attempt forms part of a well-organized cultic event. 27.  The ark narrative concludes in 16:43 with all the people going to their homes, while David went to his home to bless his family (“house”). With this remark, the reader is led to conclude that not only has the cult in Jerusalem now been firmly established, but so has the dynasty of David. 28.  The hymn in the center of chap. 16 plays an important role. By using poetic source materials for the construction of his hymn, the Chronicler creates a pause in the progress of the narrative to let the theological significance of the event sink in. As K. Nielsen (1999: 333) puts it: “at the moment when Asaph and his associates begin singing the song, there is a pause in the progress of events. Prose continues the story; poetry creates a standstill. This, however, does not mean that the psalm leaves the audience untouched or unchanged, for the psalm has been placed in the middle of the narrative about the Ark arriving in Jerusalem. It is especially at this point that it is necessary to clarify who captured Jerusalem, and a hymn is suitable for this purpose.” This view is echoed in the conclusion of W. Doan and T. Giles (2008: 29–43, here, p. 43): “In the context of the narrative dialectic, the Chronicler presents, in song, an iconic interlude, one that allows the spectators to embrace an identity and a history. Their participation

Louis C. Jonker

422

Table 4.  Structural Analysis of 1 Chronicles 15–16 Reference

Content

Parallel

15:1–24

Levites and levitical responsibility

—

15:25–16:3

Bringing of the Ark to Jerusalem

2 Sam 6:12–19a

16:4–7

Appointment of singers to praise Yahweh before — the Ark

16:8–36

Song of Praise sung by the Levites

Ps 105:1–15 (in 16:8– 22); Ps 96:1b–13a (in 16:23–33); Ps 106:1b, 47–48 (in 16:34–36)

16:37–42

Appointment of further singers, as well as priests and gatekeepers for Gibeon

—

16:43

Conclusion

2 Sam 6:19b–20a

and third, 16:37–42 (again, without parallel in biblical material) in which further singers are appointed, as well as priests and gatekeepers for the ministry at the tabernacle at Gibeon. The part of the narrative preceding the Chronicler’s creative use of source materials, that is, 1 Chr 15:1–24 (which belongs to the Chronicler’s own material), is mainly dedicated to the Levites and levitical responsibilities. This first part relates well to the Sondergut sections in 16:4–7 and 16:37–42, where the appointment of (Levitical) singers is also the main focus, as well as to the Song of Praise in 16:8–36, which—according to the Chronicler—was sung by Levites. The bringing of the ark to Jerusalem is therefore embedded in texts that give prominence to the Levites. 29 Two further observations should be included in our discussion. The first concerns the references to “covenant” in the hymn of praise (16:15 and 17; see table 1), and the second, the relationship of the ark narrative to the references to “covenant” in the Solomon narrative. With reference to the hymn of praise it is interesting that the Chronicler chose a part from Psalm 105, which speaks of remembering Yahweh’s covenant forever (‫)לעולם‬, and of an everlasting covenant (‫)ברית עולם‬. It is clear that “Yahweh, our God” (according to v. 14) is the active party in this everlasting covenant, and that the ancestors Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (according to vv. 16–17) were the in the song allows the Chronicler’s audience to claim the identity of past heroes as their own identity.” 29.  Knoppers (2004b: 586–587, 617–618) points out that the subject in 1 Chr 13:17 is not clear from the text. His argument is that the unsuccessful attempt of bringing the ark to Jerusalem is interpreted by the Chronicler as related to the fact that the priests and Levites were not directly involved in that attempt. In the second, successful attempt, the role of the Levites is particularly emphasized.

The Place of Covenant in the Chronicler’s Theology

423

initial receivers of the covenant which should be remembered forever. The endurance of the covenant is echoed in 2 Chr 6:14 (in the Solomon narrative—quoted from 1 Kgs 8:23) where it is stated that “Yahweh, the God of Israel, keeps his covenant with his servants who walk before Him with all their hearts.” In that context, in 2 Chronicles 6 the Ark is indicated to have contained the covenant of Yahweh (v. 11 || 1 Kgs 8:21). This is probably a reference to the stone tablets which were associated with Yahweh’s covenant on account of the Sinai tradition. The Vorlage texts quoted in 2 Chr 5:2 and 7 (i.e., 1 Kgs 8:1, 6) are the only of the Chronicler’s source texts that already contained the full expression “the Ark of the covenant of Yahweh.” These texts might have been one of the contributing factors for the Chronicler modifying the same expression earlier in his book. The Chronicler clearly saw the kingship of Solomon both as culmination of the covenant relationship with the Davidic house and as prime example of how this covenant should be remembered forever through walking before Yahweh with all his heart. Because the Chronicler wanted to emphasize this perspective on Solomon’s kingship, he already started preparing the way for it by inserting the word ‫ ברית‬in earlier expressions related to the ark of Yahweh. The texts in 2 Chr 5:2 and 7 taken over from 1 Kgs 8:1 and 6 therefore could have been the instigation (or at least, one of the reasons) for the Chronicler modifying his earlier texts. At this point, it is necessary to summarize again what insights have been gained from this more detailed study. My main conclusion from this combination of different perspectives on 1 Chronicles 13–16 is that one cannot (and should not) oversimplify the matter by looking for only one single explanation for the Chronicler’s employment of the theme of “covenant,” and particularly of the expression “the Ark of the covenant of Yahweh.” It seems that it would be a reduction of the complexity of the narrative and compositional-historical dynamic involved in these texts to relate the Chronicler’s use of “covenant” exclusively to the kingship of David (van den Eynde), or the presence of Yahweh in the cultic center (Klein), or the Levitical activity (Eskenazi). It rather seems that the Chronicler’s employment of the theme of “the Ark of the covenant” formed an important literary and ideological nexus among (at least) the following accents: 1.  The Ark is clearly a symbol of Yahweh’s overwhelming presence (e.g. the Uzza story included in 1 Chronicles 13) 2.  The Ark is clearly a confirmation of David’s, but particularly Solomon’s kingship, and the presence of the ark in Jerusalem, and later in the temple, signifies Yahweh’s election of the place and king.

424

Louis C. Jonker

3.  The Ark of the covenant is brought into continuity with Yahweh’s covenant with the ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the kingship, Jerusalem and the temple are thereby seen as continuations of the eternal covenant. 30 4.  The eternal covenant can be prolonged by remembering forever Yahweh’s covenant, and by walking before Yahweh with all your heart, a lifestyle that is closely associated with king Solomon. 5.  The Levites are seen as the essential custodians of the covenant relationship between Yahweh and Israel, as it is symbolized in their carrying the ark of the covenant and their singing songs of praise at its inauguration in Jerusalem, in contrast to the first unsuccessful attempt to bring the ark to Jerusalem where the Levites were probably not involved.

In our attempts to interpret the Chronicler’s employment of “the Ark of the covenant of Yahweh,” we have to acknowledge the complex network of textual relations within which this expression is used and, thereby, also the complexity of how it contributes to the Chronicler’s rhetorical tapestry. One aspect needs to be addressed still, namely the sociohistorical context within which the Chronicler constructed his literary work. The following section will deal with this aspect.

Covenant and Self-Categorization? In another publication, I have indicated that the processes of identity negotiation which can be witnessed in Chronicles are closely related to the multileveled sociohistorical context of the late Persian period. 31 I distinguished four sociohistorical levels of existence: (1) the Persian imperial context, (2) the provincial context in the Levant, (3) the tribal situation in Yehud, and (4) the cultic situation in Jerusalem. I argued that the Chronicler interacted with all these contexts in his contribution toward a new self-understanding in the postexilic era. 32 The Chronicler’s participation in the process of identity negotiation in different parts of his work ranges from processes of inner-group self-categorization within the cult and Yehud, to intergroup self-categorization on a provincial level and within the 30. Contra Bautch (2009), who focuses mainly on the Mosaic covenant in his description of the Persian-period understanding. 31. See Jonker 2011: 63–94. 32.  In my studies on Chronicles, I depart from a discursive understanding of the process of identity negotiation. Texts are not records of finalized identities but are rather participants in multifaceted discourses that seek (or project) a better self-­understanding. I have articulated this view more elaborately in other publications (2009: 197–217; 2010: 65–91).

The Place of Covenant in the Chronicler’s Theology

425

Persian imperial context. This multileveled understanding of the Chronicler’s communication will now be used as a framework to interpret his usage of “covenant” terminology. It is well-documented in commentaries on Chronicles that the writer of this literary work was a master in combining different older traditions into one in order to service his own position or argument in the time of reconstruction during the Persian period. As Knoppers puts it in the introduction to his Chronicles commentary, Arguments for pervasive disunity fail to come to full grips with the distinctive features of the Chronicler’s compositional technique: his adroitness in drawing upon originally disparate lemmata, his ability to acknowledge and negotiate different ideological perspectives, and his capacity for pursuing his own agenda as he engages a variety of earlier biblical traditions. There is no question that one encounters both proPriestly and pro-Levitical passages in Chronicles. Nor is there any doubt that the work draws from Priestly tradition in certain contexts, but from Deuteronomic tradition in others. Rather than an indelible mark of literary disunity, these passages evince the author’s concern to mediate different perspectives with the context of the late Persian period or early Hellenistic age. 33

The conclusions at the end of the previous section lead us to come to a similar stand here. It seems that the Chronicler in his usage of covenant terminology drew from different traditions, although the main impetus came from the deuteronomic-Deuteronomistic tradition. As elsewhere, the Chronicler employed these traditions for his own purposes, however. This would explain why the Chronicler gave so much prominence to the Ark of the covenant of Yahweh. The bringing of the Ark surely would have had very clear theological overtones for the people during David’s time. But, why did the Chronicler—in his time—consider the Ark to be so important? Hicks addresses this issue as follows: “Why is the Chronicler so interested in the ark when the ark no longer exists? The Chronicler is interested in the close identification of the ark with the temple and more specifically with God, that is, the presence of God. Consequently, even though the postexilic community does not possess the ark, they do have a temple. . . . David’s attitude toward the ark is the kind of attitude the postexilic community must have for the temple. Just as David sought God through the ark, so postexilic Israel must seek God through the temple.” 34 33.  Knoppers 2004a: 92. 34.  Hicks 2001: 143.

426

Louis C. Jonker

I would like to relate the Chronicler’s ark narrative and his prominent usage of covenant terminology to the process of identity negotiation in the late Persian era. It seems that this literature communicates at least on two levels, namely, within the context of the cult in Jerusalem, but also within the wider imperial context. Let us first consider the context in Jerusalem: the Chronicler contributes to a process of legitimating the Second Temple which was built after the return from exile. From other writings (such as Haggai) we know that there was skepticism in the reconstruction community in Judah about the legitimacy of a sanctuary which did not show the splendour of former days. The Chronicler, with his emphasis on the ark’s being the symbol of Yahweh’s enduring covenant for all ages, indicated that the reconstructed Jerusalem and the Second Temple stood in continuation of the eternal covenant. The Chronicler’s import from some psalms of praise furthermore emphasizes that this covenant does not only go back to the time of David when the ark was brought to Jerusalem, and eventually to the Solomonic temple, but it stands in continuity with the promises Yahweh made to the ancestors. However, there is another line of communication within the Jerusalem context which should not be missed in the Chronicler’s literary construction. The overall construction emphasizes the position of the Levites as essential custodians of the covenant relationship between Yahweh and Israel. The Levites were the cultic officials who had been responsible for the successful transportation of the ark of the covenant of Yahweh into Jerusalem and into the first temple. Within my understanding of the Chronicler’s participation in the identity negotiation processes of his day, I see in this portrayal an inner-group self-categorization process in which the authors of Chronicles (who most likely were associated with the levitical priesthood in the Second Temple) were defining themselves vis-a-vis other priestly factions of the day. Many scholars have indicated that we may assume some tensions and rivalries among the Second Temple priesthood, and this in all likelihood forms the background to the Chronicler’s version of the Ark narrative. It was important for the Chronicler to show—differently from his Vorlage—that the Levites played a pivotal role in insuring the place of the ark of the covenant of Yahweh in Jerusalem. However, the Chronicler communicates on another sociohistorical level, namely, within the context of the Persian imperial existence. Within a context where Yahwism and dedication to Yahweh were no longer a given, the Chronicler urges his audience “to walk before Yahweh with all their hearts.” In the Chronicler’s presentation of the symbol of the ark, King Solomon becomes the prototype of this conduct. The Chronicler

The Place of Covenant in the Chronicler’s Theology

427

reminds his audience in Jerusalem and Yehud that they should remain loyal to the covenant of Yahweh in the imperial context where this is no longer a given. This theme pans out in the rest of Chronicles where “seeking Yahweh” becomes a central theme. The imperial context with other religious options should not mislead the people of Yehud to neglect the eternal covenant of Yahweh. In this way, the Chronicler participates in a process of inter-group categorization in which the identity of his own group is formulated over and against some outside groups (in this case, other religious options in the Persian Empire). The emphasis that Jerusalem and the temple was actually the place where Yahweh’s existence was concretely symbolized by the ark also made a strong statement about the Second Temple in the Persian era. In order to build self-esteem in a context of reconstruction and dependence the Chronicler confirmed the importance of Jerusalem and the Second Temple­with arguments that transcend the imperial existence. Their prominence and legitimacy as cultic community in Jerusalem find continuity in covenantal traditions of the past—a legitimacy that should therefore also be acknowledged within the imperial context.

Conclusion What does this analysis contribute to our understanding of covenant in the Persian period? The following points seem to emerge from my study: 1.  The Chronicler, most probably writing in the late Persian era, still found the concept covenant useful for his own purposes of defining the Second Temple cultic community in Jerusalem, and for his interaction with the Persian imperial context. 2.  The Chronicler draws from different covenantal traditions in his endeavor to participate in processes of self-categorization in his own time, and he combines covenantal elements from the ancestral tradition (eternal covenant) with the desert tradition (the ark) in order to provide legitimacy for the Second Temple and to urge his audience toward walking before Yahweh with whole hearted devotion. 3.  The close association of Ark and Covenant seems pivotal in the Chronicler’s cultic understanding, with the ark associated with both Yahweh’s presence and the Davidic royal house.

Bibliography Bautch, R. J. 2009 Glory and Power, Ritual and Relationship: The Sinai Covenant in the Postexilic Period. Library of Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Studies 471. London: T. & T. Clark.

428

Louis C. Jonker

Boda, M. J. 2010 1–2 Chronicles. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale. Bodner, K. 2006 Ark-Eology: Shifting Emphases in “Ark Narrative” Scholarship. Currents in Biblical Research 4: 169–97. Dirksen, P. B. 2005 1 Chronicles. Leuven: Peeters. Campbell, A. F. 1975 The Ark Narrative, I Sam 4–6, II Sam 6: A Form-Critical and Traditiohistorical Study. Missoula: Scholars Press. Doan, W., and Giles, T. 2008 The Song of Asaph: A Performance-Critical Analysis of 1 Chronicles 16:8–36. Catholic Biblical Quaterly 70: 29–43. Eskenazi, T. 1995 A Literary Approach to Chronicles’ Ark Narrative in 1 Chronicles 13– 16. Pp. 258–74 in Fortunate the Eyes That See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Seventieth Birthday, ed. A. B. Beck. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Eynde, S. van den 2001 Chronicler’s Usage of the Collocation ‫ארון ברית יהוה‬. Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 113: 422–30. Hicks, J. M. 2001 1 and 2 Chronicles. Joplin, MO: College. Japhet, S. 1993 I and II Chronicles. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. Jonker, L. C. 2009 Textual Identities in the Books of Chronicles: The Case of Jehoram’s History. Pp. 197–217 in Community Identity in Judean Historiography: Biblical and Comparative Perspectives, ed. G. N. Knoppers and K. Ristau. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 2010 David’s Officials according to the Chronicler (1 Chronicles 23–27): A Reflection of Second Temple Self-Categorization? Pp. 65–91 in Historiography and Identity (Re)formulation in Second Temple Historiographical Literature, ed. L. C. Jonker. Library of Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Studies 534. London: T. & T. Clark. 2011 Engaging with Different Contexts: A Survey of the Various Levels of Identity Negotiation in Chronicles. Pp. 63–94 in Texts, Contexts and Readings in Postexilic Literature: Explorations into Historiography and Identity Negotiation in Hebrew Bible and Related Texts, ed. L. C. Jonker. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2/53. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Klein, R. W. 2006 1 Chronicles. Minneapolis: Fortress. Knoppers, G. N. 2004a 1 Chronicles 1–9. Anchor Bible 12. New York: Doubleday. 2004b I Chronicles 10–29. Anchor Bible 12A. New York: Doubleday. McKenzie, S. L. 2004 1–2 Chronicles. Nashville: Abingdon.

The Place of Covenant in the Chronicler’s Theology

429

Miller, P. D., and Roberts, J. J. M. 1977 The Hand of the Lord: A Reassessment of the “Ark Narrative” of 1 Samuel. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Nielsen, K. 1999 Whose Song of Praise? Reflections on the Purpose of the Psalm in 1 Chronicles 16. P. 333 in The Chronicler as Author. Studies in Text and Texture3, ed. M. P. Graham and S. L. McKenzie. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 26. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Porter, S., and de Roo, J. 2003 The Concept of Covenant in the Second Temple Period. Leiden: Brill. Rost, L. 1926 Die Ueberlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids. Stuttgart: Kohl­ hammer. Schicklberger, F. 1973 Die Ladeerzählungen des ersten Samuelbuches: Eine literaturwissenschaftliche und theologiegeschichtliche Untersuchung. Würzburg: Echter. Seow, C. L. 1992 Ark of the Covenant. Pp. 387–93 in vol. 1 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday. Tuell, S. S. 2001 First and Second Chronicles. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. Wright, J. W. 1998 The Founding Father: The Structure of the Chronicler’s David Narrative. Journal of Biblical Literature 117: 45–59.

Index of Authors Abou-Assaf, A.  230 Abravanel 279 Achenbach, R.  94, 98 Ackroyd, P. R.  240, 247 Ahn, G.  32 Albertz, R.  135, 201, 247 Allen, L. C.  375, 384 Álvarez Valdés, A.  82, 83 Amsler, S.  237, 243 Assis, E.  272, 274, 275, 278, 279, 280 Assmann, J.  63, 364 Asurmendi, J.  380 Aurelius, E.  104 Avioz, M.  120 Baldwin, J. G.  189, 271, 273, 275, 282, 284 Balentine, S. E.  215 Baltzer, K.  201, 377 Barbour, J.  358 Barkay, G.  195 Bar-On, S.  140 Barrick, W. D.  78, 80 Bartholomew, C. G.  340, 341 Barton, J.  214, 358 Batto, B.  85 Bauks, M.  24 Baumgart, N. C.  25, 76, 80, 81, 82 Bautch, R. J.  47, 48, 62, 76, 80, 81, 82, 136, 140, 153, 157, 171, 195, 206, 212, 256, 258, 320, 371, 374, 395, 402, 409, 416, 417 Bedford, P. R.  247 Bellinger, W. H., Jr.  309, 318 Ben Zvi, E.  114, 116, 119, 121, 123, 137, 138, 232, 234 Berges, U  196, 198 Bergler, S.  213, 214, 217 Berquist, J. L.  311

Beuken, W. A. M.  196, 197, 198, 206, 235 Bickerman, E.  357 Blanco Wissmann, F.  101 Blenkinsopp, J.  52, 198, 201, 203, 230, 302, 379 Block, D. I.  373 Blum, E.  27, 30, 43, 61, 65, 67, 69, 139, 140, 142, 143 Boda, M. J.  80, 123, 231, 241, 242, 244, 250, 256, 257, 276, 279, 391, 395, 416 Bodner, K.  417, 418 Boecker, H. J.  272 Bolin, T. M.  358, 361, 363, 364 Börner-Klein, D.  24 Bosshard, E.  231 Bosshard-Nepustil, E.  196, 198, 199, 206 Braun, R. L.  397 Brettler, M. Z.  154, 155, 241, 242 Brett, M. G.  29, 34 Briant, P.  32, 291, 296, 297, 298, 363 Bricker, D. P.  344, 346 Bright, J.  167, 184 Broyles, C. G.  312, 314 Brueggemann, W.  183, 188, 316, 317, 359 Buber, M.  190 Buchanan, G. W.  131, 375 Bulmerincq, A. von  273 Campbell, A. F.  222, 418 Carr, D. M.  23, 31, 65, 140, 141, 311, 357 Carroll, R. P.  161, 162, 175, 178, 179, 181, 187 Cazelles, H.  234 Childs, B. S.  198

431

432

Index of Authors

Cholewiński, A.  78, 80, 83 Clements, R.  200 Clifford, R. J.  260 Cody, A.  276 Cogan, M.  245 Coggins, R. J.  236 Collins, J. J.  187, 189, 190 Conrad, E. W.  276 Cook, S. L.  190 Crenshaw, J. L.  214, 340, 357 Cross, F. M.  132 Crüsemann, F.  65 Day, J.  340 Deist, F. E.  215, 216 Dell, K. J.  341 Dentan, R. C.  282 Dequeker, L.  23 Devescovi, U.  281 Dhrome, É.  341 Dillard, R. B.  396, 397, 399, 404 Dillman, A.  46 Dirksen, P. B.  416 Doan, W.  421 Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W.  346 Dor, Y.  377, 380, 385 Dozeman, T. B.  93 Driver, S. R.  255, 273 Duggan, M. W.  383, 385 Duhm, B.  164 Edenburg, C.  133, 138, 141, 143 Eichrodt, W.  381, 409 Eilers, W.  295, 296, 297 Eissfeldt, O.  155 Elazar, D. J.  132 Elliger, K.  276 Eskenazi, T.  417, 418, 419, 423 Eynde, S. van den  44, 132, 137, 416, 417, 418, 423 Ferris, P. W.  345 Finsterbusch, K.  69 Fischer, G.  52 Fishbane, M.  140, 166, 176, 178, 179, 273, 283, 384 Fitzmyer, J. A.  230

Floyd, M. H.  231, 272, 273, 275, 276 Foster, R. L.  263 Freedman, D. N.  153, 156, 157, 170, 171, 381, 382, 428 Fretheim, T. E.  247 Fried, L. S.  383 Fritz, V.  222 Galambush, J.  161 Gerstenberger, E. S.  79, 81, 82, 85, 198, 238, 330, 331, 341 Gertz, J. C.  60 Gesundheit, S.  65, 67 Giles, T.  421 Glazier-McDonald, B.  273, 301 Gnoli, G.  296, 298 Goldingay, J.  122, 201, 326, 327, 331, 333 Goldsworthy, G.  341 Gordis, R.  168 Gordon, R. P.  340 Görg, M.  24 Gosse, B.  109 Graffy, A.  164, 272 Grant, J. A.  339, 341, 342, 351, 358 Grätz, S.  384 Greenberg, M.  51, 85, 138, 161, 381 Green, D. J.  133 Greenfield, J. C.  230 Groß, W.  27, 43, 48, 49, 75, 82, 139, 140 Grothe, J. F.  175 Grünwaldt, K.  26, 82, 83, 85 Gunkel, H.  24, 25, 31, 309 Haarmann, V.  143 Habel, N. C.  351 Hahn, S. W.  360 Hallo, W. W.  344, 345 Halvorson-Taylor, M. A.  78 Hankins, D.  359 Haran, M.  156 Harland, P. J.  54 Hartley, J. E.  238, 240, 344, 345 Heckl, R.  69

Index of Authors Hengel, M.  362 Herrenschmidt, C.  292, 293, 295, 296, 297 Hibbard, J. T.  197 Hicks, J. M.  425 Hill, A. E.  275, 281, 301 Hillers, D. R.  232, 235, 392, 393, 395 Hobbs, T. R.  164, 165 Holladay, W. L.  162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 175, 179, 180, 181, 183, 189, 376 Holmgren, F. C.  136 Horst, F.  276 Hossfeld, F.-L.  93, 94, 311, 313, 317, 318, 324, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335 Houtman, C.  59, 61 Hugenberger, G. P.  132, 372 Hurowitz, A.  229 Hyatt, J. P.  165 Jackson, B. S.  63, 64 Jacob, B.  24, 25, 27, 30 Jacobs, J.  272 Janowski, B.  48 Janzen, J. G.  345 Japhet, S.  374, 378, 391, 392, 397, 399, 400, 401, 402, 403, 405, 416 Jeremias, J.  214, 215, 218 Job, J. B.  177, 247 Johnson, D. G.  199 Jonker, L. C.  424 Joosten, J.  75, 77, 78, 82, 85 Josephus 42 Jüngling, H. W.  49, 138 Kaiser, O.  198 Kalluveettil, P.  372 Karrer-Grube, C.  380, 382 Kelly, B. E.  404, 405 Kent, R. G.  32, 33, 291 Kessler, J.  80, 135, 136, 229, 230, 231, 236, 241, 244, 247, 248, 264 Kimḥi 279

433

Klein, R. W.  23, 379, 416, 417, 418, 420, 423 Knauf, E. A.  33, 143 Knohl, I.  43, 44, 234, 240 Knoppers, G. N.  55, 82, 122, 132, 140, 141, 157, 190, 213, 219, 222, 224, 242, 245, 246, 247, 335, 371, 377, 384, 416, 418, 422, 425 Koch, C.  64, 133, 134, 135, 195 Koch, K.  32, 33, 36, 381 Köckert, M.  33, 65, 66 Kohn, R. L.  240, 246 Konkel, M.  65, 66 Korpel, M. C. A.  75, 79 Kramer, S. N.  343 Kratz, R. G.  60, 221, 231 Kraus, H. J.  310, 323, 324 Krüger, T.  278 Kublin, H.  278 Kuhrt, A.  32, 295 Kutsch, E.  111, 132, 360 Kutsko, J. F.  51 Laato, A.  183, 187, 189 Lau, W.  203 Leeuwen, R. C. van  340 Leichty, E.  229 Lemaire, A.  230 Lemche, N. P.  63 Leske, A. M.  124 Leuchter, M.  109, 185 Levenson, J. D.  213, 359 Levin, C.  26, 62, 94, 97, 102, 131, 132, 134 Levine, B. A.  76, 82, 85, 239, 241 Levinson, B. M.  60, 63, 69 Lincoln, B.  292, 293, 295, 296, 299 Linington, S.  372, 375 Lipiński, E.  79 Lipschits, O.  203, 246 Lohfink, N.  23, 69, 132, 140, 212 Löhr, M.  26 Long, B. O.  164, 165, 242 Lundbom, J. R.  153, 163, 166, 169, 175, 176, 177, 180, 184, 186, 187, 188, 246, 381

434

Index of Authors

Lust, J.  177, 186, 187, 190, 191 Lyons, M. A.  85 MacDonald, N.  397 Maier, C.  97, 102, 181 Marti, K.  273 Mason, R.  240, 266, 271, 275, 284, 401 Mason, S. D.  48, 117, 120, 198 Mayes, A. D. H.  141, 195, 397 Mays, J. L.  232 McBride, D., Jr.  42 McCann, J. C., Jr.  313, 319 McCarthy, D. J.  61, 62, 132, 134, 136, 137, 139, 195, 212, 213, 215, 393, 394, 405 McConville, J. G.  222, 342, 381, 385 McDonald, B.  273, 282 McDonald, N.  220 McKane, W.  109, 162, 166, 167, 168, 175, 177, 340 McKenzie, S. L.  109, 120, 121, 247, 249, 271, 273, 275, 279, 284, 397, 416 Meinhold, A.  274, 275 Mendenhall, G. E.  359, 360, 375, 393, 404 Mendenhall, G. H.  157, 195 Mettinger, T. N. D.  155 Meyers, C. L.  189, 230, 231, 237, 276, 282, 298, 299, 300 Meyers, E. M.  230, 231, 276 Miano, D.  157, 171 Middlemas, J. A.  247 Milgrom, J.  76, 77, 78, 79, 82, 85, 271 Millard, A. R.  230 Miller, P. D., Jr.  272, 418 Mittmann, S.  61 Moore, R.  246 Morrow, W.  230 Mowinckel, S.  309 Müller, R.  79, 83, 85 Murphy, R. E.  339 Murray, D. F.  398, 404

Naʾaman, N.  133 Naumann, T.  29 Naveh, J.  297 Nelson, R. D.  134, 141, 145, 236 Newsom, C. A.  345 Ngwa, K. N.  345, 349, 351 Nicholson, E. W.  153, 154, 176, 185, 187, 195, 347, 360 Nickelsburg, G. E.  260 Nielsen, E.  134, 141 Nielsen, K.  421 Nihan, C.  23, 33, 43, 75, 76, 77, 78, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 234, 240, 247 Nitsche, S.  196 Nogalski, J. D.  216, 218, 231 Noll, K. L.  360 Noth, M.  399 Novotny, J.  229 Nowack, W.  271, 273 Nykolaishen, D. J. E.  371, 382 O’Brien, J. M.  271 O’Connor, K. M.  384 Oden, R. A.  195, 359 Oeming, M.  295, 296, 298, 300 Ollenberger, B. C.  260 Olson, D. T.  220 Olyan, S. M.  44, 45, 46, 135, 159, 160, 164, 168, 241, 247, 267, 381 Oswald, W.  59, 60, 61, 62, 68 Otto, E.  60, 63, 65, 69, 85, 98, 140, 141 Pakkala, J.  380 Parpola, S.  157, 158 Patton, C. L.  324, 336 Paul, S. M.  155 Payne, D.  201 Perlitt, P. L.  93, 132, 134, 139, 140, 360 Person, R. F.  256, 257, 261 Petersen, D. L.  124, 189, 230, 235, 246, 272, 273, 275, 276, 281, 283 Pfeiffer, E.  272 Phillips, E. A.  349, 351

Index of Authors Podella, T.  79 Pohlmann, K.-F.  380 Polaski, D. C.  196, 199, 200, 202, 205, 256 Polzin, R.  118 Pope, M. H.  348 Porten, B.  297 Porter, S.  410 Pressler, C.  137 Pritchard, J. B.  344, 345 Pury, A. de  29 Quack, J. F.  46 Rad, G. von  24, 25, 26, 41, 115, 357, 359, 360, 397 Redditt, P. L.  255, 257, 259, 260, 263, 275 Reicke, B.  214 Reinmuth, T.  382 Renaud, B.  61 Rendtorff, R.  132, 364 Renger, J.  63 Reuter, E.  138 Reynolds, C.  271 Rezetko, R.  418 Richardson, M. E. J.  79 Robert, P. de  247 Roberts, J. J. M.  418 Rofé, A.  220 Römer, T.  98, 124, 134, 135, 142, 241, 242, 245, 246, 247 Rom-Shiloni, D.  52, 155, 158, 161, 162, 164, 171 Roo, J. de  410 Root, M. C.  296, 304 Rose, H. R.  277 Rose, J.  32, 33 Rose, M.  134, 141 Rost, L.  418 Rothenbusch, R.  82 Roth, M. T.  137 Rudolph, W.  214, 215, 273, 274 Ruppert, L.  27 Rüterswörden, U.  132 Ruwe, A.  44, 45

435

Sarna, N. M.  24, 25, 30, 31, 283 Schaefer, K.  325, 326 Schaper, J.  69, 271 Scharbert, J.  219 Schellenberg, A.  54 Schenker, A.  120, 132 Schicklberger, F.  418 Schivelbusch, W.  124 Schmid, K.  29, 33, 60, 97, 145, 222, 318, 319 Schmidt, W. H.  24 Schmitt, G.  141 Schmitt, H.-C.  61 Schmitt, R.  32, 291 Scholl, R.  196 Schüle, A.  24, 25, 52, 54 Schultz, R. L.  361 Schwartz, B.  279 Schwienhorst-Schönberger, L.  362 Seebass, H.  24, 26, 30, 31 Seitz, C. R.  153 Sekine, S.  202, 205 Sellin, E.  273 Selman, M. J.  391, 392 Selms, A.  273 Seow, C. L.  341, 361, 362, 363, 417 Sérandour, A.  231 Seybold, K.  201 Sheinman, H.  111 Shemesh, Y.  272 Ska, J.-L.  23, 240 Smith, J. L.  273, 281, 282 Smith, M.  138 Smith, M. S.  200 Smith, P. A.  201 Smith, R. L.  276 Snaith, N. H.  182 Sneed, M.  357, 358 Sommer, B. D.  176, 179, 180, 283 Sparks, K. L.  361 Specht, H.  28 Speiser, E. A.  30 Sperling, S. D.  136, 394 Stackert, J.  44, 45, 75, 76, 77, 78, 82, 83 Stade, B.  167, 266 Stahl, M.  63

436

Index of Authors

Steck, O. H.  24, 25 Steymans, H. U.  76, 78 Stipp, H.-J.  97, 102 Stoebe, H. J.  52 Stromberg, J.  201, 202, 204 Stuart, D.  215, 217, 219, 230 Sweeney, M. A.  189, 196, 214, 215, 221, 222, 272 Swetnam, J.  276 Tadmor, H.  136 Taggar-Cohen, A.  136 Talmon, S.  136 Talstra, E.  242 Thiel, W.  97 Thompson, J. A.  155, 183, 187, 374 Ticciati, S.  347, 348, 349 Tigay, J. H.  384 Tigchelaar, E. J. C.  262, 264 Timmer, D. C.  45 Tollington, J. A.  237 Torrey, C. C.  383 Tov, E.  175 Toy, C. H.  164 Tsumura, D. T.  24 Tuell, S. S.  416 Ulrich, E.  200 Utzschneider, H.  64, 66, 271, 274 VanderKam, J. C.  277 Van Seters, J.  143 Vargon, S.  341 Vaux, R. de  276 Vawter, B.  190 Veijola, T.  132 Verhoef, P. A.  237, 271, 273, 275, 276, 278, 282, 284 Vermeylen, J.  198 Waard, J.  175, 184 Wallis, G.  272 Walton, J. H.  344, 346, 348

Wanke, G.  102 Watanabe, K.  157, 158 Weimar, P.  27 Weinfeld, M.  132, 155, 156, 157, 195, 372, 373 Weippert, H.  52 Weiser, A.  214, 325, 331, 333 Wellhausen, J.  60, 64, 65, 93, 115, 271 Welwei, K. W.  63 Wenham, G. J.  24, 76, 79, 83 Westbrook, R.  64 Westermann, C.  24, 25, 28, 30, 31, 202 Weyde, K. L.  271, 273, 278, 280, 283 Wiesehofer, J.  295 Wildberger, H.  200 Williamson, H. G. M.  340, 374, 379, 380, 383, 384, 385, 397, 399, 400, 401, 402, 403, 404 Wilson, C. R.  124 Wilson, G. H.  309, 350 Wiseman, D. J.  79 Wöhrle, J.  25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 33, 231, 244 Wolff, H. W.  214, 215, 229, 231, 232, 234, 237, 242 Wong, K. L.  272 Wright, D. P.  234 Wright, J. W.  419 Wyatt, N.  24 Yaron, R.  166 Zakovitch, Y.  283 Zehnder, M.  133 Zenger, E.  23, 24, 25, 48, 93, 311, 313, 317, 318 Zer-Kavod, M.  276 Zimmerli, W.  23, 28, 41, 42, 43, 46, 47, 53, 339, 340, 359, 365

Index of Scripture

Genesis 1  42, 111, 312 1–11 198 1:1–2:4a 24 1:2 24 1:3–27 24 1:26–28 53 1:28  25, 28, 29, 53, 77 2:1–3 46 2:2–3 44 2:3 46 2:4 156 2:9 260 6–9 198 6:6 103 6:18  46, 198 7:1 198 7:11  25, 198 8:15–17 53 8:21 361 8:21–22  112, 113 8:22 198 9  24, 43, 45, 54, 196, 198, 205, 361 9:1  25, 29, 77 9:1–3 53 9:1–17 53 9:1–17 323 9:4–6  54, 55 9:8–17  23, 25, 198 9:9  54, 112 9:9–17 46 9:9–17  113, 136 9:11  25, 156 9:12  25, 54 9:12–17 26 9:13 26 9:15 401

Genesis (cont.) 9:15–16  82, 331 9:16 198 9:17 54 10:5 33 12:1–9 327 12:7 114 13:15 114 13:16 184 15  49, 323, 327 15:6 169 15:17 136 15:18  114, 156 15:18–21 49 16:18 401 17  23, 24, 26, 28, 29, 31, 42, 45, 48, 234, 323, 327 17:1  27, 48 17:1–8  26, 27 17:2  27, 29 17:2–6  27, 28 17:2–8 26 17:4–7 77 17:5 77 17:7  27, 29, 156, 198 17:7–8  27, 28, 159 17:8 27 17:9  26, 29 17:9–1 46 17:9–14 26 17:12–13 47 17:15–22 26 17:19–21  28, 29 17:20  29, 30 17:23–27 29 17:23–27 26 22:18 169

437

Genesis (cont.) 24:7 114 25:12–17 29 25:12–18  29, 30 25:16 29 25:18  29, 30 26:2–5 330 26:3  114, 350 26:4 77 26:5 199 26:24 350 28:3  30, 31, 34, 77 28:3–4 30 28:4  30, 31 28:13 114 31:3 350 34:30 66 35:11  34, 77 36:6–8 31 36:7 31 36:8 31 37–50 328 38:15 162 41:33 168 48:4  34, 77 48:21 350 50:11 66 50:24 114 50:26 328 Exodus 1:7 77 2:23–25 331 2:24  82, 331 3  325, 328 3:1 351 3:8  114, 325 3:17 325 4:14 328

438 Exodus (cont.) 4:24 46 6:2–8 323 6:3 48 6:4  77, 156 6:5  82, 331 6:7 77 6:7–9 326 6:8 114 8:22 164 9:18–19 233 10  213, 215, 217 12:44 46 13:3–7 66 13:5 114 14:31 101 15 329 15:13  324, 325 15:15 143 15:26 325 16 325 16:28 199 17:1–7 233 17:9–13 114 18–24  60, 61, 62 18–40 60 18:1 62 18:8–9 325 18:20 199 19  196, 383 19–20  156, 326 19–24 93 19:2  61, 62 19:3  61, 62 19:4 325 19:5  61, 62 19:6  62, 119 19:8 61 19:14 62 19:16  61, 62 20  93, 94 20–23  60, 94 20–24  68, 94 20–40 46 20:1 62 20:6  324, 325 20:8–10 47

Index of Scripture Exodus (cont.) 20:11 44 20:18  62, 93 20:19–20 94 20:22–23 94 20:23 94 20:24  62, 325 20:25 99 21:1 64 21:12–22 64 23  140, 141 23:12 67 23:15 66 23:16  66, 67 23:20–33  65, 94, 139, 140 23:22 100 23:23  65, 140 23:24  66, 141 23:25 233 23:25–33 76 23:27–32 139 23:32 65 23:32–33  139, 140 23:33 65 24  59, 68, 70 24–25 323 24–34 67 24:3  61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 70 24:3–8 61 24:3–8  61, 63 24:4–8 61 24:4–8 61 24:7  61, 64 24:8 61 24:9–11 61 25–31 60 25:1–31 45 25:18–19 325 25:23 325 26:6 325 30:12–16 400 31  43, 45, 48 31:12 44 31:12–17  43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 53

Exodus (cont.) 31:15 47 31:16  43, 44, 56, 198 31:16–17  46, 53 31:17  44, 56 32 94 32–34 45 32:1–6 94 32:4 94 32:8 67 32:9 239 32:9–14 103 32:11–13 112 32:11–14 103 32:12 103 32:13 114 32:21 239 32:25–29 282 32:30 67 32:31 239 33–34 325 33:1 114 33:12 239 33:13 325 34  65, 67, 68, 326 34:1 99 34:5–7 104 34:6 324 34:6–7 325 34:6–7  76, 214, 324, 325, 326 34:10  139, 140, 156 34:10–16 140 34:10–27 41 34:10–28 65 34:11  65, 68, 139, 140 34:11–16  139, 372 34:11–26  65, 67, 68 34:12  65, 66, 139 34:13  66, 141 34:14 66 34:15 140 34:15–16 140 34:16 66 34:17 65

Index of Scripture Exodus (cont.) 34:18 65 34:18–20 66 34:21 67 34:22  66, 67 34:25 66 34:27 68 34:28  65, 98, 99 34:35 65 35:1  45, 47 35:4–39:43 45 40  42, 56 40:34 48 40:34–38 41 Leviticus 1–16 54 2:8 276 2:9 182 2:13 75 3:14 157 4:2 242 5:5 241 5:15  241, 242 5:18 242 6:8 182 6:16 182 9:17 182 9:22–24 42 10:18 164 12:3 46 16:21  80, 241 16:34 42 17–20 87 17–25 77 17–26  43, 87 18:5  79, 83 19:2 119 19:36 77 21:23 238 22:14 242 22:17–25 271 22:19–24 271 22:32 77 23:5–8 66 23:42 77

Leviticus (cont.) 24:8  41, 75, 198, 395, 402 25:18–19 330 25:20 164 25:38 77 26  75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 196, 230, 232, 234, 237, 238, 239, 240, 242, 244, 248 26:3 76 26:3–13  76, 77 26:3–41 274 26:6 85 26:9  41, 76, 77, 85, 156 26:12 77 26:13 77 26:14  81, 100 26:14–39 76 26:14–39  78, 83 26:15 78 26:16 232 26:19 233 26:23 238 26:25  78, 243 26:26 232 26:30–31 239 26:31 239 26:31–32 238 26:39 79 26:40  76, 80, 159, 241 26:40–41 79 26:40–45  78, 79, 83, 234 26:41 84 26:42  79, 80, 114 26:42–45 79 26:42–45 81 26:44 83 26:45  79, 86, 331 26:46 199 Numbers 3:13 157

439 Numbers (cont.) 5:6 241 5:7 241 5:26 182 6:23–27 273 6:24–27  283, 285 6:26 77 7 380 8:17 157 9:16 157 10:33 414 11:11–14 239 14:19 315 14:23 114 14:44 414 15:24–29 242 15:30–31 242 18:19  198, 395, 402 20:2–13 233 23:19 111 25:11–13 282 25:12 85 25:12–13 185 25:13 198 28:26 157 31:16 241 32:11 114 35:11 242 35:15 242 Deuteronomy 1–3 220 1:1 103 1:5  69, 199 1:6 156 1:8 114 1:32 101 1:38 114 2:34 241 3:6 241 3:8 143 3:28 114 4  196, 220, 397 4:1  199, 274 4:2 103 4:8 199 4:10  156, 157

440 Deuteronomy (cont.) 4:13 109 4:20 99 4:24 134 4:25–31 220 4:26 242 4:29  397, 398 4:29–31 159 4:39 143 4:44 104 5 93 5–11 140 5:1  140, 199, 218 5:2  41, 98, 109, 134, 156 5:2–3  100, 401 5:7–9 94 5:12 67 5:12–15 47 5:22–25 93 5:27 100 5:28 93 5:28–29 330 5:31 68 5:32 140 5:33 330 6:1  103, 140, 199 6:3  100, 140, 330 6:4 140 6:10  112, 114, 140 6:11 232 6:15 242 6:17–18 330 6:20 140 6:24 140 7  65, 94 7:1  65, 140 7:1–6  139, 140, 141 7:2  65, 141, 241 7:3 66 7:3–4 141 7:4  66, 242 7:5  66, 141 7:6 62 7:7 140 7:7–9 135 7:9  62, 111, 342

Index of Scripture Deuteronomy (cont.) 7:11  140, 199 7:12  134, 140, 241 7:12–16 274 7:16 65 8:1  112, 140 8:10 232 8:12 232 8:18 156 8:19 242 8:20 140 9:1 140 9:5 114 9:12–14 104 9:27 239 10:1 112 10:1–3 246 10:1–5 104 10:8  102, 414 10:12–13 347 11:8 140 11:10–11 233 11:13–21 274 11:15 232 11:17  233, 242 11:32 199 12–16 235 12–26 68 12:1–28 134 12:2 162 12:5 236 12:6 236 12:28 330 13:2–18 138 13:2–19 138 13:6–10 396 13:15 241 14:2 62 14:23 347 14:26 233 14:29 232 15:19–16:8 66 15:21 271 16 67 16:3 157 16:8–9 276 16:10 66

Deuteronomy (cont.) 16:12 199 16:13 67 17:2–3 138 17:2–7 396 17:8–13 102 17:11 199 17:14–20 94 17:15 94 17:19 199 18  94, 98, 100, 101, 102, 104 18:5  102, 183 18:9–14 98 18:15–18  96, 100, 101, 104, 105 18:15–22  97, 98, 103, 104 18:16 94 18:16–18 102 18:18  100, 102 18:19  96, 102 18:20–21 96 18:21–22 105 18:22 103 20:16–18 141 20:17 241 21:10 141 22:13–29 138 24:1–4  164, 165 24:4 165 26 241 26:12 232 26:14 100 26:16  62, 100, 199 26:16–19 319 26:17–19 393 26:18 62 26:19 62 27 100 27–29 219 27–30  221, 225 27–32  217, 218, 225 27:1 218 27:3 199 27:10 199 27:15–26  99, 100

Index of Scripture Deuteronomy (cont.) 28  79, 219, 223, 224, 230, 232, 237, 239, 240, 242, 244, 248, 315 28–29 83 28–30 242 28–32  215, 217 28:1 99 28:11 100 28:12 219 28:15–68 237 28:20 242 28:22  219, 233, 242, 243 28:23–24 234 28:24 242 28:33 233 28:37 219 28:38 232 28:39 233 28:42 219 28:44 134 28:45  219, 242 28:46 219 28:47 219 28:47–48 233 28:48  219, 242 28:51  219, 242 28:58  199, 246 28:58–59 236 28:61 242 28:62–68 135 28:63  233, 242 28:69  41, 98, 99, 109, 134, 156 29 395 29:1 219 29:8  99, 134 29:9 99 29:9–12 99 29:9–14 68 29:11  199, 372 29:12  99, 100 29:13 156 29:13–14  100, 372 29:14–15 402

Deuteronomy (cont.) 29:19 199 29:20 199 29:21 246 29:23–25  394, 403 29:33 219 30  85, 219, 224, 381 30:1  135, 159, 220 30:1–3 220 30:1–10  83, 381, 397 30:2 220 30:2–3 84 30:3 220 30:4 220 30:6 84 30:7  199, 220 30:8 100 30:8–10 84 30:9 220 30:10  199, 246 30:15 104 30:16 221 30:18 242 30:20 114 31:7  112, 114 31:9  199, 218, 246, 414 31:9–13  63, 70 31:14 218 31:14–18 261 31:16  239, 261, 262, 263 31:20  114, 232 31:24  218, 246 31:25 414 31:25–26 246 31:26  246, 414 32 221 32:1–43 217 32:8–9 167 32:10 24 32:21 221 32:35  221, 243 32:44–52 217 32:46 199 32:48–54 218

441 Deuteronomy (cont.) 33 218 33:4  199, 246 33:9  185, 281 33:10 276 34 325 34:4  112, 114 34:9 32527:1 218 Joshua 1:8 246 2 143 2:1 162 2:9–11 143 2:10 241 2:12 143 3:3 414 3:17 414 4:7 414 4:18 414 5:2–7 46 5:6 112 6:8 414 6:17–18 241 6:22 143 6:22–25 143 6:25 143 7 241 7:1 241 7:10 241 7:11 241 7:12–13 241 7:19 241 8:2 115 8:30–35 99 8:31  99, 246 8:31–32 246 8:33 414 8:34 246 9 142 9:6–7 142 9:9–10 143 10:10–14 115 10:12 157 11:23 113 12:7 114 13:1–6 113

442 Joshua (cont.) 14:11 157 20:3 242 21:41 112 21:45 178 22:16 241 23 65 23:1–5 113 23:6 246 23:7 66 23:12  65, 66 23:13 65 23:14  113, 178 23:15 114 23:16  134, 241 24:1 378 24:20 76 24:25  372, 373 24:26 246 Judges 1:1–2 113 2 139 2–3 65 2:1–5 139 2:2  65, 66, 139 2:2–3 139 2:3 65 2:11 66 2:20 241 2:21 139 3:4–6  139, 140 3:5  65, 139 6:13 316 11:1 162 11:21 66 1 Samuel 1:22 117 2–4 118 2:2 118 2:11 118 2:27–28 118 2:30  116, 118, 273 2:31–36 118 2:35 183 3:1 118

Index of Scripture 1 Samuel (cont.) 3:18  117, 121 4 118 4–6  418, 419 4:3 414 4:4 414 4:5 414 6:21–7–7:1 333 8:7 116 11:1  134, 138 12:21 24 12:25 246 14:13–15 114 14:24–46 241 14:45 111 15:22 279 15:29 111 16:13 334 18:3 134 18:7 114 20:8 134 22:20 118 23:18 401 24:8 138 29:3 157 2 Samuel 3:1 134 3:21 401 5  333, 419 5:1–3 420 5:3  134, 401, 410 5:6 66 5:6–10 420 5:11–25  418, 420 6  415, 418, 419, 421 6–7  333, 335 6:12  410, 412, 413 6:12–19 422 6:13  410, 412 6:15  410, 412 6:17  410, 412 6:19–20  421, 422 7  55, 109, 110, 116, 120, 201, 317, 319, 335

2 Samuel (cont.) 7:1–17  119, 323, 334 7:2  410, 412 7:6 157 7:13 117 7:15 317 7:25  117, 178 10:12 117 11:12 157 12:1–3 241 12:10 117 19:25 157 19:29 168 21:1 241 21:1–9 241 21:18–22 114 22:51 117 23:5  51, 109, 119, 198 24:16  103, 104 1 Kings 1:23 138 2:3 246 2:4  178, 180 2:8 157 2:18 179 2:27 118 2:33 117 2:45 117 5:26 134 6 225 6:12 178 6:19 414 7:15 266 8  221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 242, 243, 244, 245 8:1  224, 410, 412, 413, 414, 423 8:1–6 245 8:1–13 245 8:3 225 8:5 224 8:6  410, 412, 413 8:9 246

Index of Scripture 1 Kings (cont.) 8:12–53 221 8:13 224 8:14–61 241 8:15–16  117, 118 8:16 117 8:20 178 8:21  245, 410, 423 8:23  410, 423 8:23–24  109, 110, 111, 119 8:25  180, 183 8:31 221 8:31–40 242 8:31–53  232, 243, 244 8:32 222 8:33  221, 222, 242 8:33–34 223 8:33–51  222, 223, 224, 225 8:34 405 8:35 243 8:35–36  223, 234 8:37  233, 243 8:37–40 223 8:41–42 143 8:41–43 223 8:44–45 223 8:46 224 8:46–51  80, 223 8:47 223 8:50 331 8:51 99 8:56 178 9:5 180 9:6–9 315 11 384 11:1–2 384 11:4 134 11:32  117, 120 11:38 120 12:4 138 12:6–7 239 12:28 94 14:21 117 15:4 119

1 Kings (cont.) 15:9 411 15:19 134 22:22–23 96 3 Kingdoms 6:12 413 7:2 413 8:1 413 2 Kings 8:19  119, 411 10:19 96 11  398, 399 11:4 411 11:4–12 371 11:5 411 11:7 399 11:17  378, 398, 399, 411 11:18 399 11:18–20 399 11:19–20 399 14:6 246 16:7–9 134 16:13 182 17  98, 101 17:1–19 240 17:3 138 17:7–20  101, 237 17:13  96, 97, 98, 102, 103, 104 17:13–14 94 17:13–15  96, 104 17:13–17 100 17:13–23 96 17:15  101, 395 17:23  94, 96 17:35  134, 156 17:41 141 18:11 403 18:11–12 403 18:12 100 21:7 118 21:8 246 22:8 246 23 402

443 2 Kings (cont.) 23:1 378 23:1–3 371 23:2  99, 411 23:3  372, 401, 402, 411 23:25 246 24:1  138, 237 25 223 25:21 135 25:27–30  178, 247, 331 Isaiah 1:1 100 1:11–17 279 2:2 204 5:6 168 6:9–10 239 6:10 97 7:9 101 8:6 239 9:5–6 121 9:5–7 121 10 256 10:33–34 259 11:1 121 13–23  197, 204 14:1  119, 159 14:3 156 14:4 167 19:16 204 21:9 141 24  198, 199, 200, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206 24–27  196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 204, 205, 207 24:1 197 24:1–20 198 24:2  197, 204 24:3 197 24:4 197 24:5  196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 204, 205 24:6  197, 199

444 Isaiah (cont.) 24:7 197 24:10  24, 196, 204 24:11 204 24:12 204 24:17 197 24:18 198 24:19 197 25:2 204 26:5 204 26:20 198 27:10 204 28:1 197 28:14 239 28:15 200 28:20 162 29:13 239 31:6 97 33:8 200 34:6–7 312 34:11 24 40–48 303 40–66  122, 201 40:31 325 41:8 42 42  301, 302, 304 42:1 302 42:1–4 302 42:4 302 42:5 302 42:6  111, 135, 200, 302 42:8  141, 302 44:9–10 266 44:24–45 122 45:1  122, 135, 302 45:9  117, 121 48:12–15 122 49  302, 304 49:1 302 49:3 302 49:6 302 49:7 302 49:8  135, 200, 303 49:15–21 171 51:2 42 54:7–8 159

Index of Scripture Isaiah (cont.) 54:9 184 54:9–10 199 54:10  85, 135, 136, 200 55  52, 201, 202, 203 55:1–5 51 55:3  119, 198, 200, 202, 205, 381 55:3–11 122 55:5 203 55:6  397, 398 56–66  201, 204 56:1–9 142 56:3–8  203, 204 56:4  135, 200 56:6 205 56:6–7  47, 119 59:21 200 60–62  201, 202, 203, 204 60:7 204 60:10  142, 203 60:14 203 60:16 204 60:18 204 61  200, 203, 204 61:4 203 61:5 142 61:8  51, 135, 136, 156, 198, 200, 201, 202, 204, 381 62:1 204 62:2 203 62:6 204 63:7–64 171 63:11–12 200 63:16 171 64:4 80 64:7 171 65:1  397, 398 66 197 66:18  203, 204, 205 66:21 119

Jeremiah 1 97 1–20 252 1:9  100, 102 2  162, 163 2–3 161 2:2 162 2:3 162 2:4 98 2:15 168 2:20 162 2:20–25 162 2:24 97 2:37  163, 164 3:1  97, 160, 162, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169 3:1–5  163, 164, 165 3:3 166 3:4  166, 167, 169 3:4–5 164 3:5 164 3:6  166, 167 3:6–4 166 3:8  162, 188 3:9 162 3:12  166, 167 3:14  97, 104 3:14–18 246 3:16  77, 414 3:18  96, 181 3:19  160, 167, 168 3:19–20  164, 167 3:19–25  167, 168 4:1  97, 166, 169 4:2 169 4:13 161 4:28 103 4:29 163 5:3 97 5:7  161, 162 5:11 181 5:14 239 5:15 181 6:12 188 6:30  81, 163 7 375

Index of Scripture Jeremiah (cont.) 7:2 98 7:3–15 279 7:16 239 7:22 156 7:23  77, 98 7:25 96 7:29  81, 163 7:33 239 8:4 97 8:9 163 9:6 167 9:18 167 9:24 342 9:25 181 10:1  98, 181 11  98, 99, 100, 101, 104 11:1 98 11:1–5 99 11:1–17  262, 265 11:2  98, 99, 156 11:4  100, 155, 156 11:5 114 11:6–8  100, 101 11:7  98, 100, 156 11:8 99 11:9–13 102 11:10  97, 98, 102, 156, 158, 261, 262 11:10–17 263 11:16–17 262 11:21 102 12:15 97 13:10 98 13:20 161 14:14–15 102 14:19  159, 163 14:19–21 80 14:21  80, 82, 112, 158 15:5 161 15:7 97 15:9 184 16:15 97 17:19–27 105 17:20 98

Jeremiah (cont.) 17:21 105 17:25 99 18:1 98 18:8  97, 103 18:11  97, 99 18:18 276 19:9 261 20:1–2 261 20:9 102 20:16 103 21:1 98 21:11 98 22:2 98 22:6 168 22:9 158 22:20 161 22:24  178, 299 22:29 98 22:30 180 23:1 178 23:3  77, 178 23:4 178 23:5  178, 189, 190 23:5–6  121, 176, 182, 189, 201 23:6 179 23:8 181 23:13 103 23:16 103 23:16–22 102 23:22  97, 102 23:25 102 23:30–31 103 25:4 96 25:5 97 26  103, 104 26:3  97, 103 26:4–5 104 26:9  96, 102 26:13 103 26:16  96, 102, 104 27:15 102 27:18–33 191 28:9 103 29:10  178, 179 29:13  397, 398

445 Jeremiah (cont.) 29:13–14  397, 398 29:14  97, 398 29:19 98 29:21 102 30–33  176, 188, 382 30:1 98 30:6 243 30:8 121 30:22  159, 169, 267 31 381 31–32 382 31:1  159, 169 31:2 179 31:9  161, 168 31:10 98 31:15 190 31:30–32 135 31:31  49, 52, 67, 170, 181, 267, 381, 382 31:31–33 381 31:31–34  52, 104, 159, 160, 334 31:32  156, 158 31:32–33 384 31:33  52, 77, 84, 104, 156, 181, 267 31:34 384 31:35  160, 170, 184, 185, 186 31:35–37  183, 185 31:36 187 31:36–37 184 31:37 163 32 381 32:1 98 32:23 98 32:32 99 32:36 160 32:38  159, 169, 267 32:39–41 52 32:40  52, 135, 198, 381 33 183 33:1 178

446 Jeremiah (cont.) 33:7 96 33:12 178 33:14  121, 175, 176, 187, 189, 190, 191 33:14–16 120 33:14–17 176 33:14–26  109, 119, 175, 176, 179, 188, 189, 191 33:15  178, 179 33:17  160, 170, 178, 180, 185 33:17–18  159, 180 33:17–21 109 33:19 185 33:19–26  183, 184 33:20  158, 185 33:21  179, 184, 185 33:21–22 281 33:22  186, 190 33:24  163, 187 33:25 184 33:25–35 52 33:26  163, 186, 188, 189 33:40 52 34  375, 376 34:1 98 34:8–22  156, 158, 373 34:10 374 34:13 156 34:15  374, 395, 401, 402 34:18  99, 156, 158, 375, 402 35:1 98 35:12 97 35:13 99 35:15  96, 97 35:19  180, 183 36:3 97 40:1 98 42:6 98 42:10 103

Index of Scripture Jeremiah (cont.) 42:15  96, 98 42:21 98 44:4 96 44:5 97 44:16  96, 102 44:23 98 46:10 312 48:39 167 49:25 167 50:3 168 50:4–5 122 50:5  198, 381 50:23 167 51:47 141 Ezekiel 1–11 239 7:24 238 7:26 276 11:20 77 14:6 97 14:13 241 15:8 241 16  138, 161 16:1–43 164 16:8 137 16:13–14 155 16:59–63 364 16:60  50, 82, 122, 198, 381 16:62  156, 381 16:63 364 17:3 257 17:11–19 373 17:13 398 17:13–16 138 17:18–19 372 17:20 241 18 48 18:24 241 18:30 97 20:27 241 21:2 238 24:14 103 28:18 238 30:16 184

Ezekiel (cont.) 31:3 257 33:11 97 34 381 34:1–31 256 34:25  85, 373, 381 34:25–28 84 35:5 221 36:11 77 36:26 84 36:28  77, 84, 159, 169, 267 37  52, 256, 257, 381 37:15 121 37:15–28 256 37:19 265 37:21–26 50 37:22–25 120 37:23 257 37:26  85, 198, 381 37:26–28 84 37:26–28 51 37:27 77 38:18 157 39:26 241 43:11 199 44:5 199 44:27 157 Hosea 1–3 240 2  216, 217 2:2 96 2:4  163, 166 2:9  97, 165 2:15 165 2:16–24 166 2:16–25 165 2:18 381 2:18–22 122 2:20 156 3:5  97, 120, 121 4:10 232 5:4 97 5:15 97 6:1 97 6:6 279

Index of Scripture Hosea (cont.) 7:16 97 8:13 97 9:3 97 9:17 163 11:5 97 11:8 167 11:8–9 111 11:9 83 12:3 97 14:2 97 14:3 97 14:6 122 Joel 1  215, 219, 220, 221, 224, 225 1–2  213, 215, 216, 217, 219, 221, 222 1–3 215 1:2  213, 214, 216 1:4  218, 219 1:5  216, 219 1:6 218 1:6–7 219 1:8  216, 217 1:9  216, 225 1:10 218 1:10–12 219 1:11 216 1:12  216, 219 1:13  216, 224, 225 1:14 216 1:16 224 1:17–18 218 1:19 218 1:20 218 2:1 218 2:3 212 2:12  97, 214, 216, 224 2:12–17 225 2:13  103, 214 2:14 216 2:16 216 2:17  216, 219, 224, 225

Joel (cont.) 2:18 214 2:18–27 220 2:25  218, 219 3–4 220 4  215, 225 4:1 213 Amos 3:2 240 4  237, 239, 242, 248 4:1–13 240 4:6 233 4:6–11 238 4:6–13 232 4:7 234 4:9  97, 233, 243 4:12 238 5 364 5:21 81 5:21–25 279 7:3 103 7:9  184, 238, 239 9:11–15 121 Obadiah 5–6 167 11 157 12–14 221 13 221 Jonah 3:9 103 Micah 2:4 167 2:11 239 5:1  96, 121 6  237, 248 6:6–8 279 6:9–16  230, 232, 237, 240 6:13 232 6:14  232, 233 6:14–16 232 6:15  232, 233

447 Nahum 1:7 221 2:10 273 Habakkuk 3:16 221 Zephaniah 1:2–3 113 1:15 221 2:15 167 3 122 3:8 157 Haggai 1  230, 237, 239, 245 1:1–11  232, 247 1:1–14 248 1:2 239 1:3–11  229, 236 1:3–11  235, 239, 240, 243, 244 1:4 243 1:5–6 230 1:6  232, 233, 243 1:8  243, 244 1:9  233, 243 1:10  233, 243 1:12 236 1:12–14  236, 244 1:13 282 1:14 244 2 230 2:1–3 236 2:1–5 248 2:5 244 2:6–9 248 2:6–9 248 2:10 231 2:10–14 164 2:10–19 279 2:11 276 2:14  236, 239 2:15–17  230, 232, 239, 243, 244 2:15–19  230, 243, 244

448 Haggai (cont.) 2:16 243 2:16–17 233 2:17 243 2:20–23 247 2:21–22 122 2:23  298, 299 8:1 245 8:46 242 Zechariah 1–8  231, 295, 298, 300, 301, 303, 304 1:1–3 266 1:1–6 246 1:2–11 264 1:3 97 1:6  298, 300 1:17 159 2:2 96 2:13  298, 300 2:16 159 3:3–7 276 3:8  181, 299, 300 6:9–13 189 6:13 190 7:1–3 136 7:3 276 8:6 184 8:8 77 8:13 96 8:20–23 206 9–14 298 9:1–17 255 9:9 124 9:11  256, 267 10–13 255 10–14 255 10:1–2 262 10:1–3 255 10:11  221, 257 11  255, 256, 257, 260, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267 11:1  257, 261 11:1–3 262

Index of Scripture Zechariah (cont.) 11:1–3  256, 257, 259, 262 11:2  258, 266 11:3  257, 258, 266 11:4  255, 259 11:4–6 259 11:4–8 260 11:4–16 256 11:4–17  255, 257, 262 11:4–17  255, 257, 259, 262, 263, 264, 267 11:6 255 11:7  259, 260, 261 11:7–8 259 11:8  259, 261 11:9  257, 261 11:9–10 256 11:9–10 256 11:10  136, 255, 256, 258, 259, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 267 11:11 267 11:13  266, 267 11:14  96, 256, 259, 261, 262 11:15 266 11:15–17 266 12:1–14 266 12:6–7 255 12:10–13:6 255 13:1–6 266 13:3 96 13:7–9  255, 256, 267 13:7–9 266 13:9  257, 267 14:16 206 14:21 259 Malachi 1:1–5 278 1:2 280 1:2–5  278, 279, 280

Malachi (cont.) 1:6  272, 273 1:6–2 271 1:6–2:9  271, 273, 274, 275, 284, 285 1:6–14  271, 273, 279, 285 1:7–15 275 1:10 279 1:10–14 276 1:11 273 1:12–14 275 1:14 273 2–3 304 2:1 272 2:1–2:9 273 2:1–3 304 2:1–3 304 2:1–9  271, 273, 276, 285, 304 2:1–9 285 2:2  272, 273 2:4  120, 303, 304 2:4–5 281 2:4–8 273 2:4–9 304 2:4–9  120, 185, 303, 304 2:5  303, 304 2:6 276 2:6–7 304 2:7  276, 282 2:8 303 2:9  272, 273 2:10 303 2:10–16  278, 279, 280 2:10–17 304 2:10–17 304 2:11 96 2:14  125, 303 2:17–3:6  274, 284 3:1  111, 301, 303, 304 3:2 274 3:3–12 274 3:6 111

Index of Scripture Malachi (cont.) 3:7 97 3:7–12  274, 284 3:10 275 3:13–21  274, 284 3:14  274, 284 3:17–21 274 3:23 283 Psalms 2 317 3:17 260 6:5 315 9:17 260 15:4 273 15:26 260 25:16 77 40:5 163 44  309, 314, 315, 318, 319, 320 44:24 315 50  41, 279, 364 50:5 342 50:8 279 51:18–19 279 68:35 238 69:14 315 69:17 77 71:5 163 73 318 73–83 318 73–89 311 73:17 238 74  309, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 317, 318, 319, 320 74:2 317 74:9–11 313 74:12–17 317 74:18 317 74:20  158, 315 74:22  315, 317 74:23 317 75 318 76 318 77 318 78 318

Psalms (cont.) 78:70 117 79  309, 313, 314, 315, 318, 319, 320 79:4–5 313 79:8 317 84–85 318 85 315 85:8 315 86 318 86:16 77 87–88 318 88 318 89  55, 201, 309, 317, 318, 319, 320 89:29  109, 119 90:17 260 96:1–13 422 102:18 77 103  323, 324, 326, 327, 330, 332, 333, 336 103:1 337 103:8 336 103:9 164 103:11 336 103:17 336 105  323, 324, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 332, 333, 336 105:1 337 105:1–6 327 105:1–15 422 105:1–15 324 105:8  82, 110, 410 105:8–10 336 105:9  110, 184 105:9–11 114 105:10  198, 410 106  80, 323, 324, 330, 331, 332, 336 106:1  324, 330, 337, 422 106:1–3 330 106:45  82, 136, 336 111:5  82, 136

449 Psalms (cont.) 114:2 119 119:132 77 120–134 332 132  317, 323, 324, 332, 335, 336, 337 132:1 119 132:8–10 324 132:12  319, 334 132:13 337 136  337, 342 137 310 137:4 167 Job 1:1 347 1:8 347 1:9 347 1:9–10 348 1:11  348, 349 2:9 348 2:13 351 3:1 348 4:2 351 5:8 351 6:18 24 7:11–21 349 9:12  117, 121, 362 12:24 24 13:3 351 13:13–28 349 13:24 351 19:23–29 349 19:26–17 351 23:3 351 23:9 351 23:15 351 23:17 351 29:1–6 349 29:1–6 349 29:4–5 350 29:4–5 350 29:7–25 349 31 349 40:28 398 42:1–6 350 42:5 350

450 Job (cont.) 42:6  344, 345 42:7 351 42:7–8 352 42:7–8 351 42:8 352 42:9 351 Proverbs 1:7 340 2:10 260 2:17  111, 125, 164 3:17  260, 261 3:18 260 5:18 164 9:10 340 14:26 163 19:21 121 20:24 121 22:19 163 31:30 340 Ecclesiastes 5:5 278 12 361 Qoheleth 1:2 357 1:4 360 1:4–7 361 2:24–26 363 3:13–14 363 4:17–5:6 363 5:1 362 5:17–19 362 5:18–19 363 7:14–15 364 7:15 364 8:2–4 362 8:4  117, 362 8:15 363 9:2–3 364 9:7 363 10:8–18 364 11:3–6 361 11:5–6 364

Index of Scripture

Daniel 7 302 9  80, 195 9:4–19 171 9:7 99 11:22 111

Ezra (cont.) 10:2  320, 377 10:2–4 376 10:2–6 380 10:3  371, 372, 373, 374, 376, 377, 380, 384, 395 10:5 377 10:7–44 380 10:7–44 385 10:9–44 377 10:15 378 10:19 379

Ezra 1–6 246 2:40 190 3:2 246 3:11–13 380 6:16–17 380 6:17 382 6:21 382 6:22 380 7:6 246 7:25–26 383 7:27 380 8 383 8:3 136 8:15–19 190 8:35 382 9  80, 376, 380, 383, 384 9–10  246, 371, 376, 377, 380, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 393, 394, 404 9:1 377 9:1–2 376 9:1–5 380 9:3 383 9:4 380 9:6–14 171 9:6–15  377, 380 9:14 383 10  375, 378, 379, 380, 383, 384, 385 10:1  375, 380, 384

Nehemiah 1  80, 382 1:5–11 171 5  246, 263, 264, 394 5:4 233 5:9 395 7:25 143 7:43 190 8  383, 384 8–10  382, 393 8:1 246 8:1–12  320, 383 8:8 70 8:14 246 9  199, 296, 300, 378 9–10  393, 404 9–11 246 9:6 171 9:8  136, 156 9:13 199 9:26–34 105 9:30 105 9:33–35 80 9:36  298, 300 9:36–37  295, 300 10  256, 258, 263, 377, 378 10:1 375 10:1–40 171 10:30  258, 320, 395 10:30–33 259

Qoheleth (cont.) 12:12 358 12:13 357 Lamentations 5:22 81

Index of Scripture Nehemiah (cont.) 13  246, 385 13:1 70 13:15 105 13:19 105 13:29 185 1 Chronicles 1:1 405 2 405 3:19 122 4 405 5:25 395 5:25–26 403 5:26 403 6:12–13  118, 119 9 123 10:1–14:2 419 11:3  401, 410 11:9 420 13–16  411, 417, 418, 419, 421, 423, 424 13:3 414 13:5 414 13:6 414 13:7 414 13:12 414 13:14 414 13:17 422 14 419 14:1–17 420 14:2 419 14:3–22:1 419 15–16  413, 415, 418, 419, 421, 423, 424 15:1 414 15:1–24 422 15:2 414 15:3 413 15:12 414 15:14 414 15:15 414 15:24 414 15:25  410, 412, 413, 416, 417

1 Chronicles (cont.) 15:25–16:3 422 15:26  410, 412, 413 15:28  410, 412, 413 15:29  410, 412, 413 16 405 16:1 414 16:4 414 16:4–7 422 16:6  410, 412, 413 16:8–22 324 16:8–36 422 16:15  110, 410, 422 16:15–18  114, 405 16:16 110 16:17  198, 410 16:22 123 16:34–36 324 16:37  410, 412, 413 16:37–42 422 16:43 422 17:1  410, 412, 413 17:14 123 17:15–17 395 19:13 117 21:19 96 21:23 117 22:7 400 22:19  410, 412, 413 28:2  410, 412, 413 28:5  123, 299 28:9 397 28:18  410, 412, 413 28:20 123 29:1 117 29:23 123 2 Chronicles 3:15 75 4:39 397 5:2  410, 412, 413, 423 5:7  410, 412 6 423 6:5  117, 157 6:5–6 118 6:7 400

451 2 Chronicles (cont.) 6:11 410 6:14  111, 410, 423 6:25 405 6:28 243 6:41–42 324 7 405 7:12 405 7:12–16 404 7:13–15 404 7:14 403 7:15 405 7:21–22 394, 403 7:36–39 80 8:11 414 10–36  396, 404, 413 13:5  109, 119, 123, 405, 410 14–16 396 14:2 396 14:3–5 396 14:3–5 396 14:6–15 396 15 395 15:1–7 396 15:1–7  396, 397 15:2 397 15:3 276 15:4 397 15:8–15 396 15:9–11 396 15:12  396, 410 15:13 396 15:14 396 15:15 396 16:1–6 396 16:3 411 16:7–10 396 18:15 96 18:21 96 20:7 405 21:7  109, 119, 156, 405, 411 22–23 398

Index of Scripture

452 2 Chronicles (cont.) 23  395, 398, 399, 400 23–24 123 23:1  398, 411 23:1–7 371 23:2 398 23:3  398, 411 23:3–7 398 23:4–5 402 23:6 399 23:7–20 402 23:16  123, 398, 399, 411 23:17–18 399 23:18 399 23:19 399 23:21–23 402 23:24–27 402 24:1–14 400 24:3 123 24:5 400 24:6 400

2 Chronicles (cont.) 24:11 400 24:14 400 28:2 400 28:8–15 123 28:9 397 29  395, 400 29–31 400 29:4–5 400 29:10  373, 374, 411 29:10–19 378 29:11 402 29:12–19 400 29:14 397 29:20–24 401 29:20–36 401 29:25–30 401 30:1–27 401 30:6–9 401 30:8 401 30:11–27 401 30:14 401 30:15–20 401

2 Chronicles (cont.) 30:21 401 30:22 401 31:2 401 31:2–21 401 33:7 118 33:18 96 33:22 141 34 395 34–35 401 34:4–7 402 34:8 401 34:29–33 371 34:30  99, 411 34:31  110, 411 34:31–32  401, 402 34:31–33 378 34:32  402, 411 34:33 402 35:1–14 402 35:1–17 402 35:15 402 36:13 373

Deuterocanonical Literature Baruch 2:30–33 80

1 Esdras 8:90  372, 373 9:36 379

Sirach 24:12–22 261 24:13–14 261 24:22 261 45:23–26 181