Human Interaction with the Natural World in Wisdom Literature and Beyond: Essays in Honour of Tova L. Forti 9780567701220, 9780567701213

Citation preview

Tova L. Forti

I

Chapter 3: Mark Sneed, “How Behemoth and Leviathan ‘Speak’ to Job.” Fig. 3.1. A Deity defeats a Scaly Dragon. Chapter 7: Nuria Calduch-Benages, “The Astonishing Zoo of Sirach 11:30.” Fig. 7.1. Egyptian Fowlers Netting Birds. Chapter 14: Nili Shupak, “The First Mickey Mouse: The Enigma of the Anthropomorphized Animal Drawings in Ancient Egypt.” Fig. 14.1. A mouse mistress sitting on a chair and drinking from a cup surrounded by cats engaged in various activities—hair-styling, waving a fan, and playing governess to the baby mouse. Fig. 14.2. A mouse mistress sitting on a chair and drinking from a jug through a straw (Asian style). Cats busy themselves around her, two pets—a kitten and a goose—standing on either side of her. Fig. 14.3. Foxes serving a mouse sitting on a chair, one serving a drink while holding a fan, another presenting a bunch of flowers, and a third playing a harp. Fig. 14.4. A pair of foxes pouring water for an ox. Fig. 14.5. Foxes, carrying sacks of food on their shoulders, herding goats. One holds a shepherd’s staff in its hand, the other plays a double oboe. Fig. 14.6. A cat carrying a pitcher of water and sack of food tends geese. Fig. 14.7. Cats herding geese. One carries a stick to which a sack containing food is tied while holding a baby goose. Another is attacked by an angry goose. A third pours water over the two combatants to calm them down.

xii

Illustrations

Fig. 14.8. A brewing bear. A hippopotamus kneads dough in a bowl, a canine animal holding a bowl for it to rise in. A fox/jackal carries the bitch’s(?) puppy. Fig. 14.9. An animal orchestra: a donkey plucking a harp, a lion playing a lyre and singing, a crocodile strumming a lute, and a monkey blowing a double oboe. Fig. 14.10. A he-goat dancing in front of a fox/jackal playing a double oboe. Fig. 14.11. The Myth of the Eye of the Sun. Tefnut as a lioness with a raised tail, holding a stick, her tongue stuck out menacingly towards her father’s messenger—Thoth. In the guise of a monkey, the latter complacently munches a date. Above, a vulture protects a nest of eggs—probably a reference to Thoth’s story of the quarrel between the mother eagle and mother cat. Fig. 14.12. A cat acting as servant to a mouse-magistrate and beating a nude kneeling boy with a side-lock characteristic hairstyle of young. Fig. 14.13. A variant of Fig. 14.12. Despite defecating, the youth turns the tables on the cat and beats off his attacker. The cat appeals to the mouse-magistrate for mercy. Fig. 14.14. A regiment of mice attacks a fortress defended by cats, the leader driving a chariot led by dogs. As the mice break into the city by climbing a ladder over the wall, the cats raise their hands in surrender. Fig. 14.15. A cat and mouse engaged in a boxing match, an eagle holding a palm branch serving as referee. Fig. 14.16. A cat and a mouse fighting a duel with curved sticks. Fig. 14.17. A bird (crow?) climbing a fig tree by means of a ladder while a hippopotamus, perched high in the branches, gathers figs into a sack. Fig. 14.18. A procession of prisoners, bound and screaming—a dog, cat, and bird—escorted by guards (a bird[?] and dog holding a stick). Fig. 14.19. A hippopotamus and crow standing on a balance beam resembling the hieroglyphic sign for life, an owl and cat serving as judges. Fig. 14.20. A lion and mountain goat playing a senet board game.

Illustrations

xiii

Fig. 14.21. A mouse god being carried by four canine priests (jackals or foxes) along a canal. The kneeling priest offers incense and pours a libation, the one standing in front of the entourage reading the order of the ceremony from a papyrus scroll. Fig. 14.22. A tomb owner presents offerings to Amenophis during a procession. Eight workmen carry the statue of the god on his throne, two others waving fans in front of the deified pharaoh. A priest with a leopard skin cloak walks alongside. Fig. 14.23. A group of musicians and dancers: a harpist and lutist. A dancer stands in the center, two musicians behind her—a double oboist and lyrist. Fig. 14.24. Funeral banquet. Painted relief from the tomb of Vizier Rekhmire. Fig. 14.25. The conquest of Ashkelon by Ramesses II’s army. Fig. 14.26. Judgment of the Dead. Papyrus Ani, Nineteenth dynasty. Fig. 14.27. Queen Nefertari, Ramesses II’s wife, playing a senet board-game. Fig. 14.28. Tomb owner and his wife being waited on by their servants. Chapter 17. Ada Taggar-Cohen, “Divine Gift: Sacrifice of Game and Domesticated Animals in Hittite and Biblical Cultures.” Fig. 17.1. Hüseyindede vase. Fig. 17.2. The İnandıktepe vase, third register—the slaughter. Fig. 17.3. The frieze from the silver stag vessel in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Chapter 18. Jennifer L. Andruska, “Gazelles: Symbols of Power and Vulnerability in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East.” Fig 18.1. Shard depicting the Egyptian goddess Anukis/Anuket being worshipped as a gazelle. Fig 18.2. Gold pendant depicting the goddess standing on a lion, holding a gazelle in each hand with snakes crossing behind her waist. Fig 18.3. Painting on small Egyptian chest in which the goddess in the middle is replaced with the Tree of Life (made up of lotuses), which is flanked by gazelles.

C

Samuel L. Adams, Union Presbyterian Seminary Megan Alsene, Palm Beach Atlantic University Jennifer L. Andruska, University of Manchester Amitai Baruchi-Unna, Hebrew University of Jerusalem Nuria Calduch-Benages, Pontifical Gregorian University Mordechai Cogan, Hebrew University of Jerusalem Katharine J. Dell, University of Cambridge Michael V. Fox, Jerusalem David A. Glatt-Gilad, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Knut Heim, Denver Seminary Will Kynes, Samford University Atar Livneh, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Brittany N. Melton, Palm Beach Atlantic University Nili Samet, Bar-Ilan University Yael Shemesh, Bar-Ilan University Nili Shupak, University of Haifa Mark Sneed, Lubbock Christian University Ada Taggar-Cohen, Doshisha University Danilo Verde, KU Leuven Eran Viezel, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev

AP

T

T

L. F

David A. Glatt-Gilad

One of my great pleasures with Tova, besides the obvious one of being her long-standing office mate, is accompanying her to the campus café and witnessing how her presence lights up the faces of so many people— young and old, academicians and administrative personnel, whether from within her own department or from others. Tova is not naturally charismatic, but she has a love for people and their interests that is magnetic. People gravitate to Tova because she is authentic, that is to say, she is bright but modest, intensely curious about the human experience, utterly loyal to her friends, and a great communicator who knows the importance of listening as much as making herself heard. Tova’s childhood years were spent in an unadorned workers’ neighborhood on the outskirts of Netanya, Israel. Both her parents were Holocaust survivors who had endured unfathomable suffering, yet managed to instill in Tova and her siblings a sense of worth and contentment, in the spirit of Ben-Zoma’s famous saying: “Who is rich? He who is happy with his portion” (m. Avot 4:1). One of Tova’s earliest memories is of a weekly Sabbath afternoon family ritual in which all would gather around the table and proclaim aloud “We have the nicest house, the nicest family, and the most beautiful life!” Sadly, this early bliss proved to be short-lived, as Tova’s father passed away at the untimely age of 45. Nevertheless, Tova’s mother, who relocated the family to Netanya proper, continued to raise her children without a sense of deprivation, notwithstanding her own deep anxieties and overprotectiveness. Tova’s first opportunity to broaden her horizons beyond the confines of her hometown came with her army service, during which she served as a guide for the IDF Youth Corps. Seeking a pioneering environment, Tova subsequently enrolled in the literature and Bible B.A. programs at the fledgling University of the Negev (later Ben-Gurion University of the

xviii

A Personal Tribute to Tova L. Forti

Negev). This is where her lifelong friendship with Mordechai Cogan took shape. Following graduation, Tova spent seven years in Italy with her new husband, Eli, teaching Bible and Jewish culture at Jewish schools, as well as Hebrew language at ulpan (a center for the study of Hebrew). These formative years were invaluable in exposing Tova to European culture and developing her innate cosmopolitanism. Tova’s humanistic predilection led her to resume her studies on the graduate level, first at Ben-Gurion University and then at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem under the tutelage of the renowned Moshe Weinfeld. Weinfeld’s command of ancient Near Eastern cultures knew no bounds and he was equally at home in the literatures of Mesopotamian, Hittite, Canaanite, Egyptian, and Greek civilizations. His erudition and unassumingness, as well as his interest in the universally oriented wisdom literature, proved to be a perfect match for Tova, who completed her doctorate under his guidance. Tova’s work was quickly noticed by Michael Fox, who invited her to take an active role in the Society of Biblical Literature and other professional organizations. Over the years, Tova has proven to be an able coordinator of numerous wisdom panels, never forgetting to encourage younger scholars’ participation, just as Fox had done for her. Oddly, Tova’s growing international recognition was not matched by a smooth academic advancement at Ben-Gurion University. Enduring far too many years as a mere adjunct instructor, Tova finally got her big break in the predominantly all-boys’ club thanks to the late Zipi Talshir, who was responsible for securing Tova’s first permanent half-position. More trials and tribulations were to follow, but after Talshir’s passing, Tova courageously fought tooth and nail for her own much delayed and eminently deserved promotion to the rank of associate professor. I have often joked with her that just as ‫( אין נביא בעירו‬i.e., a prophet is not recognized in his own town), so apparently ‫( אין חכמה בעירה‬a wise woman is not recognized in her own town). The prolonged sidelining did not prevent Tova from taking on an active role in departmental duties, most notably the committees for pedagogy and graduate studies. Nor did it discourage Tova from supervising graduate students, including not a small number whose potential were slowly and patiently nurtured. It is a distinct privilege to offer Tova this Festschrift as a testimony to her enlightening scholarship, her unmatched friendship, and last but not least, as a small token of appreciation for all the sumptuous pasta parties that she and Eli have hosted over the years—highly recommended for all of the colleagues from abroad who have not yet had the pleasure!

A Personal Tribute to Tova L. Forti ‫אשר ישמעו את כל הטובה אשר אנכי עשה אותם ופחדו ורגזו על כל הטובה ועל כל‬ ‫השלום אשר אנכי עשה לה‬ “when they hear of all the good fortune (‫ )הטובה‬I provide for them; they will thrill and quiver because of all the good fortune (‫ )הטובה‬and all the prosperity I provide for it” (Jer 33:9).

! ‫עד מאה ועשרים שנה‬ All hail, until 120 (years)!

xix

A

A

S T

W

L. F

Katharine J. Dell and Mordechai Cogan

Tova’s major work on Animal Imagery in the Book of Proverbs was published in 2008, but over a decade earlier, her work on animal images in Proverbs (1996) and on animals in Proverbs (1999) had already appeared. These were the starting points for her monograph, and only the beginning of the rich output she was to accomplish. Tova’s scholarly approach stems from a deep knowledge of and sensitivity to the biblical text and most of her studies treat specific texts within the context of a more general concern. One of Tova’s early interests was in the imagery of specific species—for example, that of the moth, which she uses as a way to illumine a wisdom psalm (2001). This study led to an engagement with defining the genre “wisdom psalms” that she developed in two articles (2008 and 2015—in a volume edited by Mark Sneed, a contributor to the present book), both of which look at the criteria for identifying wisdom psalms and critique imprecise methodologies used by scholars who have tried to isolate this genre. Tova finds thematic, ideational, linguistic, stylistic, lexical and figurative features that unite to form a narrow definition of wisdom psalms—in the end only Psalms 39 and 104 fully qualify as such. This work also led to another article on moths (2015), this time looking at the moth in the book of Job as a symbol of human transience. Indeed our feathered and flying animal friends feature quite prominently in Tova’s work—there are flies, bees, birds and even a short article on birds’ nests. For sure, animal imagery remains a strong feature of her work, with faunal imagery, fish and even snakes and bears featured in key articles. Early on Tova also established her interest in the main wisdom books of the Hebrew Bible, Proverbs, Job and Qoheleth, as well as the apocryphal Ben Sira. Although her monograph focused on Proverbs, she produced

xxii

An Appreciation of the Scholarly Work of Tova L. Forti

an early article on Qoheleth and ideational polarity in the use of animal imagery of the fly and the dog for a Festschrift honoring Michael Fox (2005), a former teacher and friend and also a contributor to our volume. She also showed the range of her interest in Proverbs with three articles on the Septuagint of Proverbs in comparison with the Masoretic text (two in 2005 and one in 2007) where she demonstrated her extensive philological expertise and insight, for example in an analysis of Prov 26:11 in the LXX (2016). She has continued this interest with an entry on LXX Proverbs in the Textual History of the Bible series (2017). Her work on other aspects of Proverbs beyond that of the animal imagery emerges in her article on the ’isha zara in Proverbs 1–9 (2007), which was later counterbalanced by an article on the female personification of Wisdom in Proverbs, including the idea of the “wise woman” as a more far-reaching “persona” in the book. This is an interest she was to develop later when she wrote an article on the feminine imagery of Proverbs (2020) for a key introductory volume on the Wisdom Literature, edited by Sam Adams, another participant in this volume, and Matthew Goff. This work is a great resource for scholar and student alike. Another strand of Tova’s interests—a fondness for poetry—that culminated in her monograph on the Psalms, became apparent with a fascinating study of the binding of Isaac. This was a rare foray into a narrative text, again showing her wide-ranging interests and flexibility, in particular in the way she related the biblical tale to modern Hebrew poetry (2007, and again in 2009 in Italian, a language in which she also has fluency). Tova also worked on the Elijah and Elisha cycles for an article on the key motifs in the texts about these two prophets (2007), showing again her range and diversity of command of texts of different genres. At this point we pause to look in more depth at her monograph on Animal Imagery in Proverbs (2008). In this work Tova set out her methodology for the study of animal imagery in biblical wisdom literature that was to become the model adopted by many for subsequent investigations of this distinctive literary motif. Tova culled the book of Proverbs for all animal images, and after a brief discussion of the identification of each animal—in some cases of disputed identifying marks—the text(s) in which the image appears is analyzed in order to understand how its insertion adds to the admonition or exhortation of the wisdom teacher. The images are studied in relation to particular literary forms, e.g., admonition speeches, proverbs and aphorisms, numerical sayings. A very useful discussion of the structure of these literary forms precedes, making it easy to follow the detailed analysis that follows. Tova shows how these images concretize the message and she suggests that they

An Appreciation of the Scholarly Work of Tova L. Forti

xxiii

were likely added to the didactic message in order to help the son/pupil/ listener remember the lesson of the father/teacher/preacher. Moreover, she judiciously spreads her net beyond the book of Proverbs to other examples of wisdom literature in the Bible in which similar images are found. Especially enlightening is the chapter “Animals as Models for Human Society” (ch. 4). Here the ant, hyrax, locust, and gecko appear alongside the lion, rooster, and he-goat to produce colorful educational messages concerning desired social behavior. But even in the end, the sage has to admit that there are cases where the way of certain animals is beyond his ken, “the way of the vulture in the sky, the way of a serpent on a rock” (Prov 30:18–19). A wonderment! In a number of instances, the afterlife of a proverb is explored, especially as it is presented in the translation into Greek, which at times exhibits expansion. These expansions are felicitously labelled “conceptual developments.” Such excursions lead to the late collection of proverbial wisdom in the book of Ben Sira (cf. for example, Animal Imagery, 95–99). In one instance, Prov 6:6–11, Tova suggests that the expansion concerning the diligence and productiveness of the bee “fits in well with the evidence of Hellenistic sources”…and “should be ascribed to a translator located in the Alexandrian cultural milieu” (Animal Imagery, 107). If we may speculate on the source of Tova’s life-long interest in the animal world, her remarks regarding Solomon’s wisdom might be a key: “Admiration of the wisdom discerned in nature and of the unconscious intelligence of beasts, who share a mysterious and at times esoteric knowledge inaccessible to human beings, is a recurring leitmotif in the hymns of praises to the Creator that are prominent in wisdom traditions” (Animal Imagery, 1–2). This ancient and still ongoing admiration of the natural world well describes her own wonderment of that world and well explains her penchant for study of animal imagery. After the publication of this book, more was to come from Tova’s pen beyond the work on “wisdom psalms”; she moved into theological issues in Proverbs, notably the concept of reward (2008, also taken up in 2014) and in the deed-consequence nexus so famous in wisdom scholarship, a view she recently challenged (2021). She also showed from the mid2000s an emergent interest in how redaction, notably of faunal images inserted into texts, affords us an insight into the formation and final shaping of texts (2008). This was to form the basis of her second monograph on the psalms and the way redaction functions through imagery in selected examples. Her theological interests extended to a discussion of the cause-consequence nexus in both wisdom and prophetic texts in 2010, an issue she was to return to in 2014.

xxiv

An Appreciation of the Scholarly Work of Tova L. Forti

Tova has also written a number of beautiful tributes to former teachers, colleagues and friends, notably in memory of Victor Avigdor Hurowitz and Zipora Talshir. She also contributed to the Festschriften of these personal mentors and true friends. These show her ability as a writer not simply of articles on biblical matters, but on a greater literary stage. A developing interest in metaphor also arose from Tova’s interest in animal imagery, not simply in poetic description but in the way one description can illuminate another. This transition towards metaphor is perhaps first demonstrated in depth in her article “ ‘Sweet as Honey’: From Realia to Metaphor in Biblical Literature” (2006). This article focused on honey metaphors in Proverbs and Job, identifying four rhetorical categories that encompass both the didactic and reflective frameworks of honey imagery. But bees are never far away from the honey, and so this interest in metaphor later extended to other flying creatures, notably to birds in two articles for the volume Networks of Metaphors in the Hebrew Bible (2020) edited by Danilo Verde, another greeter in this volume, and Antje Labahn. One article is on the use of bird metaphors to demonstrate themes of wandering versus safety in selected psalms and wisdom texts, and the other (with Katharine J. Dell) on texts that speak of the paths of birds, an image well known to depict the human life journey, but regarded as enigmatic when humans look to the skies to observe bird patterns of behavior. Bird metaphors are used to convey didactic advice, for example, warnings on how words can carry much further than intended with often disastrous consequences or musings on the ephemerality of life when considering the swift path and life-cycle of the bird. Tova’s knowledge of ancient birds even led her to write on the subject for an Exhibition Catalogue for the Bible Lands Museum in Jerusalem (2021), another foray into a new genre of self-expression through writing. Indeed, Tova has enjoyed some co-authorships of articles with Zipora Talshir, David A. Glatt-Gilad and Katharine J. Dell, with whom she is currently writing a commentary on Ecclesiastes/Qoheleth for the IECOT/ IEKAT commentary series to be published by Kohlhammer. A foretaste for this commentary can be found in her work on “Ecclesiastes” (2020) for another handbook on wisdom literature, this time for Oxford University Press and edited by Will Kynes, who also appears here. Often collaborations take one down new paths of knowledge and into new areas, for example into consideration of the figure of David in 1 Samuel 18 and in the “Tarshish ships” (as featured in narratives about Solomon and Jehoshaphat) in the article written with her colleague, David A. Glatt-Gilad, in tribute to her friend Mordechai Cogan, both of whom serve as editors of this book.

An Appreciation of the Scholarly Work of Tova L. Forti

xxv

One is ever aware with Tova of her sheer delight of discovering new pieces of knowledge or of putting new pieces of the complex jigsaw puzzle of the Hebrew Bible and beyond into place. This Tova does effortlessly on both a conceptual level of ideas and on a detailed level of careful philological analysis. Her work with Katharine J. Dell on Janus sayings illustrates this well, where a key general technique in the structure of Qoheleth is analyzed with three detailed examples from across this enigmatic text with attention to thematic linkages. And again in their joint article on Eccl 2:24–26, the fruit of the kind of detail needed for commentary work which still needs to be related to wider concerns, in this case, how one translates and interprets verses which seem to be in tension and actually enjoys reading them afresh! She has also written on issues of arrangement and editing in Qoheleth, again studying the shaping of the text into its final form even when it is simply on the level of an individual linking saying. Tova’s foray into prophetic texts also developed into an interest in the book of Jonah. This took her into the area of the metaphors concerning ships and to an unexpected interest in seafaring. She was able to show (2011) how the imagery of ships, seas, fish and beasts unites to a major theological theme, this time in Jonah and comparative psalms, of universal providence. This comparative ability to reach beyond one text to compare intertextually with another, on the level of the meanings of words but also on the level of theological interactions, is one of her notable skills. This was demonstrated again in an article comparing wisdom texts about the fear of God in Proverbs with the Eden narrative (2011). She enjoys making connections across both like and unlike texts, enjoying the wordplays, or the resonances or the echoes one of another. This both enriches and characterizes her work. In this context comes her work on Ben Sira, an interest of the present time that no doubt we will see emerge more strongly, but also a text that she often brings into her comparative work. Tova sees that great sage not only as the inheritor of Proverbs, but as a teacher with many different connections across the wisdom literature. Her recent study for her friend, Nuria Calduch-Benages, who also takes part in this volume, comparing Qoheleth and Ben Sira on the issue of “the poor,” is a good example. She has also shown comparative interests in taking particular themes, such as “hunting and searching,” and showing how they play out across the wisdom literature, notably in this case in the descriptions of females in these books (2020). It is fitting to end this survey with a look at her recent monograph, “Like a Lone Bird on a Roof”: Animal Imagery and the Structure of Psalms (2018). In the introduction Tova treats the Psalms as they have

xxvi

An Appreciation of the Scholarly Work of Tova L. Forti

been interpreted liturgically and in literature. This is followed by an assessment of the use of metaphor and simile, especially in the adaptation of animal imagery for didactic purposes. Engagement with the scholarship leads to an assessment of the rhetorical impact of faunal imagery as seen in refrains and secondary interpolations within psalms. It is this that she wishes to unpack. Chapter 1 looks at animal imagery in the refrains. In characteristic style, specific examples are used, notably Ps 49:12, 20 where humans are destined to die “like beasts” and Ps 59:6, 14 where the enemies of the psalmist howl like dogs. Another example in Ps 22:12–13 describes enemy encircling activity in reference to bulls and lions, also taken up in v. 16 in reference to dogs (also v. 20) and possibly lions and wild oxen (v. 21). Bees make another appearance in the example of Ps 118:12, again to describe the attacking by enemies. Chapter 2 then looks at examples in the psalms where the faunal imagery is the secondary material, with examples from Ps 84:3 in which the bird, notably the swallow, is used as a metaphor for the caring intimacy of God and from Ps 102:6–7 where other birds (pelicans, owls and the lone bird of the title) help to describe the experience of isolation and desolation of human experience. The third example of Ps 33:16–17 indicates the horse, probably a warhorse, that cannot save the suppliant, and finally the fourth, Ps 32:9, describing horse and mule as without understanding, hence not to be emulated. The didactic intent is clear throughout these rich examples and so links these redactions and refrains to the wisdom literature, although not all fall into the category of “wisdom psalms.” Our impression of the worldview of the psalmists is enriched by these comparisons. Theological themes such as fear and alienation from God or tribulations brought on by enemies are drawn out in Tova’s characteristic way. She also pays attention to rhetorical technique and the use of metaphor. This is a relatively short book, in line with the purpose of the Critical Studies in the Hebrew Bible series, but it importantly points the way towards future work in the area not only of animal imagery but possibly other types of imagery too and how it functions in the worshipping life of ancient Israel and for today’s readers of the psalms. It is our hope that this small tribute to Tova will enable her to feel less like a “lone bird” but more as part of the social aviary of biblical scholarship, appreciative of her distinctive and enduring scholarly legacy.

A

This book in honor of a dear colleague was initiated in the period just before the Covid-19 pandemic and was completed just as it appears to be becoming endemic around the world. The editors are grateful to the contributors who pursued their work for this volume despite all the difficulties, and to the publishers for their ongoing support during testing times. Thanks go especially to Andrew Mein and Claudia Camp who accepted the book proposal for the LHBOTS series, to the anonymous peer reviewers and to Bloomsbury/T&T Clark for their ongoing assistance and support. The editors are pleased to offer this volume to Tova Forti in celebration of her seventieth birthday.

A

AB ABE ABD AGJU AIL ANET AOAT APOT ATD BASOR BCOTWP BDB BEIFAO BETL BHS Bib BKAT BN BWANT BZ BZAW CAD CBR CBET CHD COS CTH

Anchor Bible Asociación Bíblica Española Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York, 1992 Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums Ancient Israel and Its Literature Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Edited by J. B. Pritchard. 3d ed. Princeton, 1969 Alter Orient und Altes Testament The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. Edited by Robert H. Charles. 2 vols. Oxford, 1913 Das Alte Testament Deutsch Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms Brown, F., S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford, 1907 Bibliothèque d’étude institut français d’archéologie orientale Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Edited by K. Elliger and W. Rudolph. Stuttgart, 1983 Biblica Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament Biblische Notizen Beihefte zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament Biblische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago, 1956–92 Currents in Biblical Research Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology The Hittite Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Chicago, 1980– The Context of Scripture. Edited by W. W. Hallo. 4 vols. Leiden, 1997–2002 Catalogue des Textes Hittites

xxx CTU

DCLS EBR EHAT EncJud ESV ET ETCSL FAT GM HALOT

HAT HBD HdO HBD HED HS HThKAT HUCA ICC IECOT Int JAAR JAJSup JANER JANES JAOS JCS JETS JHS JNES JNSL JQR JSJ JSJSup JSOT JSOTSup JSPSup KAT

Abbreviations The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani, and Other Places. Edited by Manfried Dietrich, Oswald Loretz, and Joaquin Sanmartin. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1995 Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception Exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament Encyclopaedia Judaica. 16 vols. Jerusalem, 1972 English Standard Version English Translation Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature Forschungen zum Alten Testament Göttinger Miszellen Koehler, L., W. Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and edited under the supervision of M. E. J. Richardson. 4 vols. Leiden, 1994–99 Handbuch zum Alten Testament Holman Bible Dictionary Handbuch der Orientalistik HarperCollins Bible Dictionary. Edited by P. J. Achtemeier et al. 2d ed. San Francisco, 1996 Puhvel, Jaan. Hittite Etymological Dictionary. Berlin, 1984– Hebrew Studies Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament Hebrew Union College Annual International Critical Commentary International Exegetical Commentary on the Old Testament Interpretation Journal of the American Academy of Religion Journal of Ancient Judaism. Supplements Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Cuneiform Studies Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Journal of Hebrew Scriptures Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages Jewish Quarterly Review Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series Journal for the Study of Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series Kommentar zum Alten Testament

Abbreviations KUB LÄ LCL LHBOTS NAB NCB NEA NEB NEchtB NIB NICOT NIDOTTE NJB NJPS NRSV NVBTA OBO OECT Or OTS OTL PRSt PTS RB REJ RevQ RIMA RINAP RlA SAA SAAB SAACT SBFLA SBL SBLDS SBLSP SBLSymS SBR SBS ScrHier SJT SPB STDJ StBoT TBN

xxxi

Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköi Lexikon der Ägyptologie Loeb Classical Library The Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies New American Bible New Century Bible Near Eastern Archaeology New English Bible Neue Echter Bibel The New Interpreter’s Bible New International Commentary on the Old Testament New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Edited by W. A. VanGemeren. 5 vols. Grand Rapids, 1997 New Jerusalem Bible New Jewish Publication Society of America Version New Revised Standard Version Nuova versione della Bibbia dai testi antichi Orbis biblicus et orientalis Oxford Editions of Cuneiform Texts Orientalia (NS) Old Testament Studies Old Testament Library Perspectives in Religious Studies Patristische Texte und Studien Revue biblique Revue des études juives Revue de Qumran Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period Reallexikon der Assyriologie State Archives of Assyria State Archives of Assyria Bulletin State Archives of Assyria Cuneiform Texts Studii biblici franciscani liber annuus Society of Biblical Literature Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series Studies of the Bible and Its Reception Stuttgarter Bibelstudien Scripta hierosolymitana Scottish Journal of Theology Studia Post Biblica Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten Themes in Biblical Narrative

xxxii TDOT

TOTC TLZ TWAT

UF VTSup WAW WAWSS WBC WMANT WZKM YJS ZA ZABR ZAW ZTK

Abbreviations Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Translated by J. T. Willis, G. W. Bromiley, and D. E. Green. 8 vols. Grand Rapids, 1977–2015 Tyndale Old Testament Commentary Theologische Literaturzeitung Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1970– Ugarit-Forschungen Vetus Testamentum Supplement Writings from the Ancient World Writings from the Ancient World Supplement Series Word Bible Commentary Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes Yale Judaica Series Zeitschrift für Assyriologie Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtgeschichte Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

T

W

T

L. F

Books 2008 2018

Animal Imagery in the Book of Proverbs. VTSup 118. Leiden: Brill. “Like a Lone Bird on a Roof”: Animal Imagery and the Structure of Psalms. Critical Studies in the Hebrew Bible 10. University Park: Eisenbrauns/Penn State University Press.

Articles 1996 1999

2001

2004

2005

2006 2007

“Animal Images in the Book of Proverbs.” Bib 77: 48–63. “Animals in the Book of Proverbs.” Pages 57–61 in “Couched as a lion…who shall rouse him up” (Gen 49:9): Depictions of Animals from the Leo Mildenberg Collection, University of Haifa. Hecht Museum Catalogue 16 (Hebrew). “The Moth Image: A Window on a Wisdom Psalm (39).” Pages 319–31 in Homage to Shmuel: Studies in the World of the Bible, ed. Z. Talshir, S. Yona, and D. Sivan. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute/Ben-Gurion University Press (Hebrew). “ ‘Who Teaches us More than Beasts of the Earth, and Makes us Wiser than the Birds of the Heaven (Job 35:11).” Pages 120–24 in PECUS. Man and Animal in Antiquity, ed. B. S. Frizel. Rome: Swedish Institute in Rome [http://www. svenska-institutet- rom.org/pecus]. “Developing Proverbs: Ideational Stratification in the Editions of the Book of Proverbs.” Pages 45–60 in On The Border Line: Textual Meets Literary Criticism, ed. Z. Talshir and D. Amara. Beer-sheva 18 (Hebrew). “The Fly and the Dog: Observations on the Ideational Polarity in the Book of Qoheleth.” Pages 235–55 in Seeking Out the Wisdom of the Ancients: Essays Offered to Honor Michael V. Fox, ed. R. L. Troxel et al. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. “Proverbs 7 MT and LXX: Form and Content.” Textus 22:129–67 [coauthored with Zipora Talshir]. “Bee’s Honey: From Realia to Metaphor in Biblical Wisdom Literature.” VT 56:327–41. “Conceptual Stratification in LXX Prov 26,11: Toward Identifying the Tradents Behind the Aphorism.” ZAW 119:241–58. “The Isha Zara in Proverbs 1–9: Allegory and Allegorization.” HS 48:89–100. “The Topos of the ‘Binding of Isaac’ (the Aqedah) in Modern Hebrew Poetry.” Pages 193–210 in The Unbinding Binding of Isaac, ed. M. M. Caspi and J. T. Greene. Lanham: University Press of America.

xxxiv

2008

2009 2010

2011

2012 2013

2014

2015

The Works of Tova L. Forti “Transposition of Motifs in the Elijah and Elisha Cycles.” Pages 229–49 in And God Said — “You Are Fired”: Elijah and Elisha, ed. M. M. Caspi and J. T. Greene. Lanham: University Press of America. “The Charm of the Snake Charmer and the Snake with No Charm: Towards the Meaning of ‫ בעל הלשון‬in Ecclesiastes 10:11.” Shnaton 18:43–56 (Hebrew). “The Concept of Reward in Proverbs: Divergent Paradigms of Thinking?” Beit Mikra 53:105–23 (Hebrew). “A New Criterion for Identifying ‘Wisdom Psalms’.” Pages 365–79 in Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature and Post-biblical Judaism Presented to Shalom M. Paul on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday, ed. C. Cohen et al. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. “Two Cases of Secondary Interpolation of Fauna Images.” RB 116:232–45. “Il sacrificio d’Isacco nella poetica ebraica moderna.” Rivista di Storia e Letteratura religiosa 22:383–95. “ ‘The Race is not Won by the Swift’: Sage and Prophet Confront the Principle of Cause-Consequence Nexus.” Pages 317–29 in Or LeMayer: Studies in Bible, Semitic Languages, Rabbinic Literature, and Ancient Civilizations, ed. S. Yona. Beersheba: Ben-Gurion University Press (Hebrew). “Of Ships and Seas, and Fish and Beasts: Viewing the Concept of Universal Providence in the Book of Jonah through the Prism of Psalms.” JSOT 35:359–74. “The Polarity of Wisdom and Fear of God in the Eden Narrative and in the Book of Proverbs.” BN 149:45–57. “ ‘Sweet as Honey’: From Realia to Metaphor in Biblical Literature.” Pages 25–40 in Her Pillars Are Seven: Studies in Biblical, Post-Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Wisdom Literature, ed. V. A. Hurowitz and S. Yona. Beer-sheva 20 (Hebrew). “Arrangement and Editing in Ecclesiastes: The Saying as a Connective Link.” Beit Mikra 57:52–71 (Hebrew). “In Memory of Victor Avigdor Horowitz.” Beit Mikra 58:5–11 (Hebrew). “The Polarity of Wisdom and Fear of God in the Eden Narrative and the Book of Proverbs.” Pages 33–46 in Eve: The Unbearable Flaming Fire, ed. M. M. Caspi and J. T. Greene. Biblical Intersections 10. Piscataway: Gorgias. “The Concept of ‘Reward’ in Proverbs: A Diachronic or Synchronic Approach?” CBR 12:129–45. “The Feminine Personification of Wisdom and the ‘Wise Woman’ as Persona.” Pages 201–9 in A Life in Parables and Poetry: Mishael Maswari Caspi, ed. J. T. Greene. Islamkundliche Untersuchungen. Band 318. Berlin: Klaus-Schwarz Verlag. “ ‘Four are among the Tiniest on Earth, Yet they are the wisest of the wise’ (Proverbs 30:24): Animal Imagery from the Perspective of the Wisdom Literature.” Bible Lands E-Review Studies 2014/S1 [https://biblelandsreview. wordpress.com/bible-lands-studies/]. “Victor Avigdor Hurowitz, of Blessed Memory (1948–2013).” Shnaton 23:1–5 (Hebrew). “Animals in the Wisdom Literature.” Et Mikra 3 (2015) (Hebrew) [http://www. etmikra.cet.ac.il/]. “The Function of the Root śkl in Shaping the Ideal Figure of David in 1 Samuel 18.” VT 65:390–400 [coauthored with D. A. Glatt-Gilad].

The Works of Tova L. Forti

2016 2017

2019 2020

2021

xxxv

“Gattung and Sitz im Leben: Methodological Problems in Identifying the Wisdom Psalm.” Pages 205–20 in Is There a Wisdom Tradition? New Prospects in Israelite Wisdom Studies, ed. M. Sneed. SBL Ancient Israel and Its Literature Series. Atlanta: SBL. “Human Tribulation and Transience in Job: The Metaphor of the Moth.” Pages 161–69 in Marbeh Hokmah: Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East in Loving Memory of Victor Avigdor Hurowitz, ed. S. Yona et al. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. “ ‘If You Go Down to the Woods Today’: B(e)aring the Text of Proverbs MT and LXX.” Pages 103–12 in From Author to Copyist: Composition, Redaction and Transmission of the Hebrew Bible: Zipi Talshir Festschrift, ed. C. Werman. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. “Of Snakes and Sinners: An Intertextual Reading of Baal ha-lashon in Qoh 10:11 in Light of Ish lashon in Ps 140:12[11].” Pages 84–93 in Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually, ed. K. J. Dell and W. Kynes. LHBOTS 587. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark. “Janus Sayings: A Linking Device in Qoheleth’s Discourse.” ZAW 128:115–28 [coauthored with Katharine J. Dell]. “At the Intersection of Intellect and Insolence: The Historiographic Significance of Solomon’s and Jehoshaphat’s ‘Tarshish Ships’ in the Light of a Wisdom Motif.” Pages 67–80 in “Now It Happened in Those Days”: Studies in Biblical, Assyrian, and Other Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Mordechai Cogan on His 75th Birthday, ed. A. Baruchi-Unna et al. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns [coauthored with D. A. Glatt-Gilad]. “Proverbs: Septuagint.” Pages 253–59 in Textual History of the Bible, vol. 1C: Ketuvim (Writings), ed. A. Lange and E. Tov. Leiden: Brill. “Enjoying the Tension: Reading Qoh 2:25 in the Context of Qoh 2:24–26.” VT 69:481–89 [coauthored with Katharine J. Dell]. “Ecclesiastes.” Pages 515–32 in The Oxford Handbook of Wisdom and the Bible, ed. Will Kynes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. “ ‘Even the sparrow has found a home’ (Ps 84:4): From Uprooting and Wandering to Safety and Intimacy.” Pages 233–43 in Networks of Metaphors in the Hebrew Bible, ed. Danilo Verde and Ante Labahan. BETL 309. Leuven: Peeters. “Female Imagery in the Wisdom Literature.” Pages 177–94 in Wiley Blackwell Companion to Wisdom Literature, ed. Samuel L. Adams and Matthew J. Goff. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. “Hunting and Searching: Contrasting Patterns of Female Behavior in Wisdom Literature.” JANES 34:22–41. “ ‘When a Bird Flies through the air’: Enigmatic Paths of Birds in Wisdom Literature.” Pages 245–61 in Networks of Metaphors in the Hebrew Bible, ed. Danilo Verde and Ante Labahan. BETL 309. Leuven: Peeters [coauthored with Katharine J. Dell]. “Zipora Talshir, of Blessed Memory (1946–2016).” Shnaton 26:11–15 (Hebrew). “ ‘Let Not the Wise Man Glory in his Wisdom’: Challenging the Deed-Consequence Paradigm.” Pages 131–56 in Scribes as Sages and Prophets, ed. Jutta Krispenz. BZAW 496. Berlin: de Gruyter.

xxxvi

The Works of Tova L. Forti

“ ‘The Way of the Eagle in the Sky”: A Bird’s Eye View on the Secrets of Wisdom.” In Early Birds: Soaring with the Ancients. Exhibition Catalog. The Bible Lands Museum Jerusalem. 2022 “ ‘Yet, No One Remembered that Poor Man’: Qoheleth and Ben Sira on the Wisdom of the Poor.” Pages 149–63 in Ben Sira in Conversation with Jewish Traditions: Presented to Nuria Calduch-Benages on Her 65th Birthday, ed. Francis M. Macatangay et al. Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook. Berlin: de Gruyter. Forthcoming “The Greek Translator of the Book of Proverbs: Aspects of his Exegetical Approach,” in Papers in Honour of Prof. Emanuel Tov on His Eightieth Birthday, ed. Moshe Bar Asher. Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. “Nest in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament,” EBR 21. Berlin: De Gruyter. “Two Are Better than One: The Contextual and Thematic Use of Numbers in Qoheleth.” HUCA [co-authored with Katharine J. Dell]. “‘Four are among the Tiniest on Earth’: Ants, Bees, Moths, Locusts, and Flies in the Hebrew Bible,” in Literary and Film Animals, ed. Ž. Uvanović and S. Marjanić. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Reviews 1996

Review of R. N. Whybray, The Composition of the Book of Proverbs (JSOTSup 168; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994). JAOS 116:544–45. 2011 Review of H. Shapira, Ecclesiastes: The Biblical Philosopher (Kineret ZemoraBitan, 2011). “Qohelet Alive and Kicking,” Katharsis 17:55–69 (Hebrew). 2015 Review of A.V. Horowitz, Proverbs Introduction and Commentary, 2 vols., (Mikra Leyisrael; Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 2012). Beit Mikra 60:319–29 (Hebrew). 2017 Review of Nili Shupak, ‘No Man is Born Wise’: Ancient Egyptian Wisdom Literature and its Contact with Biblical Literature (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2016). Shnaton 25: 345–56 (Hebrew). 2018 Review of Guy Darshan, After the Flood: Stories of Origins in the Hebrew Bible and Eastern Mediterranean Literature (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2018). Beit Mikra 35:200–7 (Hebrew). Review of Mette Bundvad, Time in the Book of Ecclesiastes (Oxford Theology and Religion Monographs; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015). JTS 69:748–53. Forthcoming Review of Samuel Adams, Greg Schmidt Goering, and Matthew J. Goff (eds.), Sirach and Its Contexts: The Pursuit of Wisdom and Human Flourishing, JSJSup 196 (Leiden: Brill). Dead Sea Discoveries.

I

This collection of essays centers on the natural world, exploring the central interaction of human beings, in their quest for wisdom, with plants and animals. This is a line of scholarship now well established in biblical studies, with the rise of interest in ecological readings1 and earth-centered approaches,2 in a renewed interest in creation as a biblical doctrine3 and an evolving interest in animals, plants and nature.4 It focuses on the books that make up the wisdom literature in Israel, a rich source of inspiration 1.  This has become a sub-field in its own right in the last two decades. A good recent summary of the state of the field at the present time is found in Hilary Marlow and Mark Harris, eds., The Oxford Handbook of the Bible and Ecology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022). For a broader focus on the contemporary environmental situation and how the Bible can be applied to this, see David Horrell, Cheryl Hunt, Christopher Southgate and Francesca Stavrakopoulou, eds., Ecological Hermeneutics: Biblical, Historical and Theological Perspectives (London: T&T Clark International, 2010). 2.  The pioneer of earth-centered approaches is Norman Habel, whose Earth Bible series has been highly influential in the field. See in particular in relation to wisdom texts: N. C. Habel and S. Wurst, eds., The Earth Story in Wisdom Traditions, The Earth Bible 3 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001). 3.  Of the many books on creation in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, see, notably: Terence E. Fretheim, God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation (Nashville: Abingdon, 2005), and William P. Brown, The Ethos of the Cosmos: The Genesis of Moral Imagination in the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991); and specifically with regard to the wisdom literature, see: Leo G. Perdue, Wisdom and Creation: the Theology of Wisdom Literature (Nashville: Abingdon, 1994) and William P. Brown, Wisdom’s Wonder: Character, Creation and Crisis in the Bible’s Wisdom Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014). On relating Old Testament/Hebrew Bible theology to ecology specifically, see Katharine J. Dell, “Old Testament Theology in Ecological Focus,” in Weisheit und Schöpfung: Festschrift für James Alfred Loader zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. S. Fischer and M. Grohmann, Wiener Alttestamentliche Studien 7 (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2010), 59–77. 4.  The very existence of animal sections in the programmes of leading conferences such as at EABS and SBL is evidence of this growing interest. See the work of Suzanna R. Millar on species prejudice in Job, for example: “Dehumanization as Derision or Delight?

2

Human Interaction with the Natural World

for such “green” themes in recent times.5 The volume divides into three parts: in Part I wisdom texts are considered; in Part II the focus is on other texts from the Hebrew Bible and in subsequent tradition, and in Part III the focus changes to wisdom texts that intersect with this interest in the natural world in ancient Near Eastern cultures. It reflects the interests of the honorand, Professor Tova Forti, whose work on animal imagery was pioneering and whose work on the wisdom literature is widely appreciated.6 Part I, “The Natural World in Wisdom Literature in the Bible,” opens with three contributions that consider the book of Job. Will Kynes’s essay traces the use of plant metaphors, notably floral ones, for humanity from Psalms 1 and 90 in Job’s argument with his friends and God. Job and the friends interpret the significance of this imagery in different ways in service of their positions, demonstrating that both the texts and the natural metaphors they employ require interpretation. Michael Fox and Katharine Dell look in depth at the speeches of God in Job 38:39–39:30 in which God turns from the vast reaches of the universe to the intimate scale of animals: their birthing and care and freedom. This essay explores the author’s images of some of these animals, the rhetorical power of the series of questions asked, the richness of the descriptions and the implications of their features for the nature of God’s rule. Finally, staying with the speeches of God, Mark Sneed argues that Behemoth and Leviathan are not natural animals and then shows how their unnatural character gives them advantages that address Job’s concerns in a way superior to natural animals. This is why God ends his divine speeches with two monsters—they “speak” to Job theologically, relationally and metaphysically, promoting a sense of the sublime. Countering Class Prejudice and Species Prejudice in the Book of Job,” BibInt 30, no. 2 (2020): 150–70, and on descriptions of death in non-humans in Job in “The Ecology of Death in the Book of Job,” BibInt 30, no. 3 (2021): 265–93. 5.  See Katharine J. Dell, “Green Ideas in the Wisdom Tradition,” SJT 47, no. 4 (1994): 423–51 and “The Significance of the Wisdom Tradition in the Ecological Debate,” in Horrell et al., eds., Ecological Hermeneutics, 56–69. 6.  See the appreciation of Tova Forti’s work and her list of publications in this volume. Her seminal work on animal imagery in Proverbs appeared in 2008: Animal Imagery in the Book of Proverbs (Leiden: Brill, 2008). Andrew Linzey is a pioneer in the wider doctrinal field in his Animal Theology (London: SCM, 1994); Animals on the Agenda, ed. Andrew Linzey and Dorothy Yamamoto (London: SCM, 1998); A. Linzey, Creatures of the Same God (Winchester: Winchester University Press, 2007), and other publications. Specifically, in reference to biblical material, see also Katharine J. Dell, “The Use of Animal Imagery in the Psalms and Wisdom Literature of Ancient Israel,” SJT 53, no. 3 (2000): 275–91.

Introduction

3

Moving to the book of Proverbs, Knut Heim’s paper is a reading of the words of Agur in Proverbs 30 as the written record of a live performance conducted by a professional fool. It explores how stereotypes associated with certain animals, which in reality are projections of human characteristics onto those animals, are employed to change human values and behavior. This approach is in many ways a thought experiment designed to shed new light, an appreciation of the material’s pervasively humorous nature as the most promising avenue for making sense of this enigmatic passage. In comparative mode between the book of Qoheleth and Psalms, Katharine Dell’s essay looks at the way both Qoheleth and Psalm 49 relativize their understanding of life by dwelling on the theme of death as the great equalizer. Reference to animals, particularly the repetition of the refrain in Ps 49:12 and 20 [Heb. vv. 13 and 21], strengthens the idea that there is no essential difference between the fate of human beings and animals, while Qoheleth raises the question of what happens to the spirit of each at death (Qoh 3:21). Turning to Ben Sira, the most significant wisdom book of the Apocrypha, Sam Adams’s paper examines Ben Sira’s colorful images depicting lions and birds and how they fit into the sage’s larger ethical framework. Three categories of animals as illustrative of human behavioral patterns, the use of animals in antithetical categories and animals to depict a dangerous female figure are added to existing scholarly categories. Most prominent are depictions of leonine aggressiveness, as well as snakes, and birds, especially birds of prey. Questions are raised as to why Ben Sira uses threatening images of animals that instill fear and why the book does not include more animal imagery in an instruction so imbued with arboreal and food imagery. This is then set within Ben Sira’s wider didactic framework, including his warnings, with characteristic sexism, of the dangers of a rebellious, stubborn wife. Staying with Ben Sira, Nuria Calduch Benages looks at the difficult text, Sir 11:30. This text is extremely difficult from a textual point of view. Attention is focused on the animal imagery that uses four animals—a bird, a wolf, a dog and a bear—to illustrate the behavior of the stranger, characterized as peddler, arrogant, swindler and spy. These images show that human beings can act like animals, even like predators, and, on other occasions, that they can be the targets of such actions as well. Ben Sira does not use this kind of imagery as a discourse embellishment but as a very effective pedagogical strategy. In Part II, “The Natural World in Non-Wisdom Texts in the Bible and its Interpretive Tradition,” the opening article by Yael Shemesh gives us

4

Human Interaction with the Natural World

an overview of the portrayal of animals in the Hebrew Bible, considering the complexity of the attitude it displays towards animals. On the one hand, she argues, the Hebrew Bible reports that God granted humans permission to harm animals for their own needs and as part of religious ritual. On the other hand, biblical law sets many limits on how animals may be exploited. Moreover, in most biblical genres, we find manifestations of a positive and even compassionate attitude towards animals, by human beings and especially by God. There then follow two essays on the Song of Songs, a book rich in imagery and metaphor and hence a fitting emphasis for this volume. Brittany Melton and Megan Alsene’s essay extends the work of Ellen Davis on the harmony between humanity and the natural world in Song of Songs. By analyzing the use of animal language as a means of describing the Lovers, it is argued that the evocation of this analogous relationship is predicated on an emphasis on humanity as co-creature in creation rather than its set-apart subduer. Then, Danilo Verde’s essay looks in detail at the metaphor of the dove in the Song of Songs, a metaphor that is often read as referring to either the shape or the function of source and target domains (i.e., what they look like vs. what they do). Verde addresses this metaphor in light of recent developments in the field of cognitive metaphor theory, arguing that in the Song of Songs doves foreground first and foremost the vulnerability of both love and lovers. The next two contributions explore animal concerns in the Pentateuch, and beyond that in commentary upon the Pentateuch. The first, by Eran Viezel, explores Lev 19:19, which presents three prohibitions: “You shall not let your cattle mate with a different kind [kil’ayîm]”; “you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed [kil’ayîm]”; “you shall not put on cloth from a mixture of two kinds of material [ša‘atnēz].” The term kil’ayîm denotes two kinds or species hybridized together. Yet, Viezel draws attention to the fact that exegetes have tended to seek the underlying logic of the prohibition on mixed plowing without reference to the prohibition on hybridization and that it is essential to take this into account. He argues that the prohibition on plowing with a bull and donkey is an attempt to abrogate the prohibition on interbreeding—which is different from its parallels because it directly impedes on a farmer’s prosperity. Atar Livneh’s article on Num 17:16–26 involves its retelling in Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (LAB) 17, a document that unfolds Israelite history from the creation to the death of Saul. Analyzing Biblical Antiquities’s account of the selection of the priestly house, this essay discusses the analogy LAB draws with Jacob’s culling of the speckled flock in this regard and its use of classical rhetorical devices. This brief

Introduction

5

reference to a past event is used as an exemplum, seeking to enhance the similarity between the election of the priestly family and Jacob’s breeding of the speckled flock. However, this example deviates from a typical exemplum to become an etiology of the image of Israel as a flock, done by juxtaposition with another story in Genesis 30. Moving to a wider selection of texts, David A. Glatt-Gilad’s essay examines how the picture of a sheep or ox being led to slaughter sharpens the text’s thematic message, with particular reference to Isaiah 53, Jeremiah 11, Psalm 44 and Proverbs 7. He argues that each of these texts invokes the imagery for a different thematic purpose. In Isaiah 53, the servant’s sheep-like passivity serves to highlight the stark contrast between his former wretched state and his future exaltation. In Psalms 44, the people’s hapless fate of being slaughtered like sheep by their cruel enemies contributes to the outrage expressed toward an absent God. In Jeremiah 11, the prophet’s belated realization of his misplaced trust in his kinsmen, who were plotting to slaughter him like a sheep, gives voice to his justified feeling of betrayal. And in Proverbs 7, the foolish lad who mindlessly allows himself to be seduced by the strange woman, following her like an ox to slaughter, is essentially held responsible for his own demise. Turning now to the cultures of the ancient Near East that most influenced Israelite culture and in turn the texts of the Hebrew Bible themselves, the first contribution to Part III, “The Natural World in the Ancient Near East,” concerns Egypt. Nili Shupak explores animated animal pictures in ancient Egyptian art, looking afresh at their significance and possible purpose. Following a rich survey of many faunal images she concludes that these visual pictures were often used to undermine the status quo, a topsy-turvy world of iconography used by critics and protesters. Alternatively, some were simply doodles to pass the time or intended as artistic entertainment, reminiscent of modern-day cartoons such as Tom and Jerry and Mickey Mouse. The beautiful illustrations give an artistic interlude for the reader. Next, Nili Samet takes us to ancient Sumerian culture, specifically to the Instructions of Shuruppak, providing a detailed survey of the contents of these instructions and their possible contexts, royal and outside. Pertinent to the theme in this book, the interest in livestock and domesticated animals in these instructions shows an equal familiarity with each and a non-royal socio-economic context. Furthermore, they are used as allegories for human scenes and situations. Casting the net further into the world of the ancient Near East, Amitai Baruchi-Unna and Mordechai Cogan present a comparative study of the image of Assyria’s kings, endowed with “great intelligence,”

6

Human Interaction with the Natural World

and King Solomon, “the wisest of all men.” The contemporary Israelite and Assyrian “wise king” traditions are examined in order to expose the characteristic features of each. It emerges that all Assyrian kings in the late imperial period were imbued with wisdom granted by the god Ea, this attribute often manifesting itself in building projects. While King Sennacherib stands apart for his engineering skills, King Ashurbanipal was the most bookish. The possibility is then raised whether the image of Assyria’s wise kings influenced the display of Solomon as the ultimate wise king. The next essay in this section takes a detailed look at Hittite culture. Ada Taggar-Cohen’s contribution surveys scholarly studies on Hittite sacrifice through an investigation of the relation between the ritual hunt scenes prescribed in Hittite festivals, their possible mythological function and their function as part of royal ideology. Both game and domesticated animals feature in this fascinating study. Finally, Jennifer Andruska’s contribution brings the themes of this volume together nicely in her focus on gazelles in both the Hebrew Bible and the ancient Near East, seeing them as an embodiment of power, despite their vulnerability. She asks what this tension reflects empirically about the interrelationship of these concepts within the created order. She concludes that humans can emulate gazelles, demonstrating stunning reserves of resilience, survival and power. In sum, attention to the natural world is the overarching parameter of the concerns of this volume, but in particular its emphasis is on humans, animals and nature as a key symbiosis of that order. The natural world is broadly defined to include all creatures, such as birds and fish, and the world of plants, trees and so on. The volume honors our esteemed friend and colleague, Tova Forti, whose interests lie in these areas. As wisdom literature is among her own interests, this literature takes priority as a key locus of inspiration. Not only biblical wisdom but that of the wider world of the ancient Near East is well represented here. Furthermore, the volume shows how animal and plant imagery in non-wisdom texts in the Hebrew Bible and in the interpretative tradition that is built upon them is a topic of far-reaching concern which is deserving of future study. This volume points the way to new possibilities in interpretation of imagery and metaphor, in animal studies, in wisdom literature and in the wider study of interpretation of texts from Israel and the ancient Near East. Mordechai Cogan, Jerusalem Katharine J. Dell, Cambridge David A. Glatt-Gilad, Beersheba October 2021

Chapter 1

“A J

’ D P

P F 1

”: M 90

Will Kynes

In his dispute with his “friends” over the meaning of his suffering, Job declares, But ask the animals, and they will teach you; the birds of the air, and they will tell you; ask the plants of the earth, and they will teach you; and the fish of the sea will declare to you. Who among all these does not know that the hand of the LORD has done this? (Job 12:7–9)1

Job’s argument here is often characterized as a type of “natural theology,”2 a return to the approach evident in Proverbs, where nature provides a “repository of wisdom” in addition to tradition (cf. Job 8:8–10).3 Thus, Job and the friends employ plant and animal metaphors to “contend for competing visions of how best to conceive of the human self.”4 Significant attention has been paid to the stampede of animal imagery in Job,5 but botanical imagery also sprouts throughout the dialogue’s rocky 1.  Unless otherwise noted, all biblical quotations are from the NRSV. 2.  C. L. Seow, Job 1–21: Interpretation and Commentary, Illuminations (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 623. 3.  William P. Brown, The Ethos of the Cosmos: The Genesis of Moral Imagination in the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 331–32. 4.  Brian R. Doak, Consider Leviathan: Narratives of Nature and the Self in Job (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014), xviii, 16; similarly, Brown, Ethos of the Cosmos, 318. 5.  E.g., Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry (New York: Basic, 1985), 85–110; Brown, Ethos of the Cosmos, 317–80; Katharine J. Dell, “The Use of Animal Imagery

10

Human Interaction with the Natural World

soil. Whether Job is referring to “plants” or “earth” in 12:8,6 both he and the friends appeal repeatedly to floral metaphors. But, when asked, “what wisdom do the plants provide?” Job and his friends disagree. As they develop the multivalent logical “entailments” of botanical metaphor,7 it becomes clear that asking the plants is not as simple as Job here suggests. The Job dialogue is “a struggle over metaphors and a conflict over stories.”8 To understand how plant metaphors contribute to this contest, interpreters must enter into the broader ancient Israelite debate it joins regarding the application of these metaphors to human life. The Psalter demonstrates well the multivalent complexity of botanical analogy. The first psalm orients the reader to the prominence of this imagery in the Psalter.9 It introduces the metaphor PEOPLE ARE PLANTS, contrasting the righteous as a fruitful tree planted by streams of water with the wicked as ephemeral chaff blown on the wind (vv. 3–4).10 However, several psalms draw this confident metaphorical expression of “life outcomes” into question. The righteous frequently lament their suffering (e.g., Ps 7) and struggle to comprehend the prosperity of the wicked (e.g., Ps 73). Psalm 90 even elaborates the PEOPLE ARE PLANTS metaphor with an alternative floral comparison that conveys the shared short and suffering-stricken in the Psalms and Wisdom Literature of Ancient Israel,” SJT 53, no. 3 (2000): 275–91; Samuel E. Balentine, “Ask the Animals, and They Will Teach You,” in “Look At Me and Be Appalled”: Essays on Job, Theology, and Ethics (Leiden: Brill, 2021), 165–74. For animal imagery in Proverbs and Psalms, see, e.g., Tova Forti, Animal Imagery in the Book of Proverbs, VTSup 118 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), and idem, “Like a Lone Bird on a Roof”: Animal Imagery and the Structure of Psalms (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2018). I have had the pleasure both to work with and learn from Professor Forti on multiple occasions. I am honored to have this opportunity to celebrate her valuable contributions to the field. 6.  For a defense of the translation above, see Brown, Ethos of the Cosmos, 330 n. 29. For the translation “speak to the earth,” understanding ‫ שׂיח‬as “speak” rather than “bush/plant,” see Seow, Job, 632. 7.  See Carol A. Newsom, The Book of Job: A Contest of Moral Imaginations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 155. 8.  Ibid., 119. See Lance R. Hawley, Metaphor Competition in the Book of Job, JAJSup 26 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018). 9.  William P. Brown, Seeing the Psalms: A Theology of Metaphor (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 75; similarly, Alter, Poetry, 117. 10.  John Kartje, Wisdom Epistemology in the Psalter: A Study of Psalm 1, 73, 90, and 107, BZAW 472 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014), 78. The righteous are compared to flourishing trees in Pss 52:10 (ET 8); 92:13 (ET 12), while Ps 37:35–36 compares the wicked to intimidating but impermanent towering cedars. In Pss 35:5; 83:13 (ET 12), the psalmist prays that his enemies would indeed become as chaff.

K

“Ask the Plants”

11

existence of all humanity (vv. 5–6).11 Though the psalmist is undoubtedly aware that both moral status and life outcome vary among humans, his reticence to highlight that reality, as opposed to Psalm 1 (vv. 3–4; cf. 5–6), emphasizes the universal human experience of suffering: “That good people suffer is simply an unavoidable part of life.”12 All, without moral distinction, may flourish like grass in the morning, but they will all wither at sunset (Ps 90:5–6).13 This essay will focus on the significant contributions that Psalms 1 and 90 make to the broader use of the PEOPLE ARE PLANTS metaphor in Job, because, through repeated allusions to these psalms, the Job poet invites readers to see the debate over the proper application of this metaphor as a dispute over the interpretation of these psalms, as well.14 Thus, Job and the friends do not draw meaning from nature directly, but through the mediation of earlier, authoritative texts.15 Their debate is not merely a clash of epistemologies, nature against tradition.16 The meaning of nature is conveyed by tradition, and tradition draws on nature to convey its message. The divine speeches reinforce this, as they present “the cosmos as revealed by Yahweh,” since God does not allow nature to speak for itself to Job, but interprets its significance to him as, for example, evidence of divine wisdom (38:36–37), provision (38:39–41) and might (39:19).17 11.  Ibid., 113, 125. 12.  Ibid., 126. 13.  Humanity is compared to grass or flowers that fade or wither in eleven passages: Pss 37:2; 90:5–6; 92:8; 102:12; 103:15–16; 129:6; 2 Kgs 19:26; Isa 37:27; 40:8; Job 8:12; 14:2. See William J. Urbrock, “Mortal and Miserable Man: A Form-critical Investigation of Psalm 90,” in Society of Biblical Literature 1974 Seminar Papers, 2 vols., SBLSP 6 (Cambridge: SBL, 1974), 1:1–23. 14.  The plant metaphor is therefore both intertextual and intratextual in Job (see Zoltan Kovecses, Metaphor: A Practical Introduction, 2nd ed. [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010], 285–89). The Job poet’s affinity for allusion in general and alluding to the Psalms in particular are both well established. See, e.g., Will Kynes, My Psalm Has Turned into Weeping: Job’s Dialogue with the Psalms, BZAW 437 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012); Katharine Dell and Will Kynes, eds., Reading Job Intertextually, LHBOTS 574 (New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013). 15.  Though the dates of Job and both these psalms are uncertain, reading the parallels between them as the Job poet’s allusions to the psalm offers a more plausible explanation of their rhetorical purpose. See Kynes, My Psalm, 49–54, 148–49; idem. “Morality and Mortality: The Dialogical Interpretation of Psalm 90 in the Book of Job,” JSOT 44 (2020): 627–28, 640–41. 16.  Pace Brown, Ethos of the Cosmos, 331. 17.  Ibid., 325. Pace Gerhard von Rad, Weisheit in Israel, 4th ed. (NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener, 2013), 236.

12

Human Interaction with the Natural World

Thus, the disputed interpretation of Job’s situation involves further disputes over both the proper application of lessons from the natural world to human experience and the appropriate interpretation of earlier texts that mediate those lessons. In other words, it’s interpretation all the way down: “Il n’y a pas d’hors-texte.”18 Eliphaz (Chapters 4–5) Eliphaz’s first speech includes a message received from a supernatural visitor: “Can mortals be righteous before God? Can human beings be pure before their Maker?” (4:17). To support this doctrine of human depravity, Eliphaz’s message moves from morality to mortality and claims that even if God charges “his servants” (‫ )עבדיו‬and angels with error (v. 18), then those who dwell in houses of clay, have their foundation in the “dust” (‫)עפר‬, are “crushed (‫ )דכא‬like a moth,” and destroyed “between morning and evening” can hardly hope to escape divine indictment (vv. 19–20). His message concludes with these unfortunate mortals dying “devoid of wisdom (‫( ”)חכמה‬v. 21). Like the comparison of humans to grass in Ps 90:5–6, Eliphaz similarly describes human life in the course of a single day, between “morning” (‫ )בקר‬and “evening” (‫( )ערב‬v. 20).19 Though this word pair is common, only in these two passages does it describe life’s duration. Several other significant words from Psalm 90 surround and reinforce this allusion: (1) the repetition of the distinctive use of “servants” (‫ )עבדים‬with a pronoun referring to God in the psalm (vv. 13, 16), where it affirms divine wrath even against God’s servants;20 (2) “dust,” ‫דכא‬, in Ps 90:3 comes from the same rare root Eliphaz uses in v. 19 and likely conveys the same destructive power;21 (3) Eliphaz declares the “wisdom” (‫ )חכמה‬desired in Ps 90:12 is unattainable for these ephemeral mortals.22 18.  Jacques Derrida, De la grammatologie (Paris: Minuit, 1967), 227. 19.  See, e.g., Friedrich Horst, Hiob 1–19, BKAT 16/1 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1968), 77; Marvin H. Pope, Job, AB 15, 3rd ed. (Garden City: Doubleday, 1973), 39; Norman C. Habel, The Book of Job: A Commentary, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985), 130. 20.  For the significance of this term in the psalm, see Hans-Peter Müller, “Der 90. Psalm: Ein Paradigma exegetischer Aufgaben,” ZTK 81 (1984): 268; Marvin E. Tate, Psalms 51–100, WBC 20 (Dallas: Word, 1990), 437–38; Christine Forster, Begrenztes Leben als Herausforderung: Das Vergänglichkeitsmotiv in weisheitlichen Psalmen (Zurich: Pano, 2000), 159. 21.  Choon-Leong Seow uses the related noun in Ps 90:3 to support his translation of the difficult ‫ידכאום‬: “they may be crushed” (Job, 406). 22.  See Horst, Hiob, 77.

K

“Ask the Plants”

13

Some consider the shift in emphasis from morality in vv. 17–18 to mortality in vv. 19–21 in Eliphaz’s vision illogical, but the interweaving of these two themes in Psalm 90, which presents the brevity of life (vv. 5–6, 10) as the effect of moral impurity (vv. 7–9), would explain why in Eliphaz’s argument “the fragility and mortality of human beings seems some kind of evidence for their lack of moral reliability.”23 Eliphaz’s maiore ad minus argument in vv. 18–19 would then hinge on the heavenly beings’ immortality. If God considers even these eternal beings impure, he certainly considers guilty those humans who evidence their impurity in their transience. Eliphaz takes to extreme lengths the view found in Psalm 90 and ancient Near Eastern texts that “the source of the violence to which humans are subject is to be found in the radical difference between the divine and the human.”24 This resolution of interpretive confusion is strong evidence for an allusion, since markers of an intertext are “both the problem, when seen from the text, and the solution when their other, intertextual side is revealed.”25 The rare connection of these ideas in the Hebrew Bible provides further evidence that the Job poet has Psalm 90 in mind.26 A few verses later, Eliphaz says, “For misery does not come from the earth, nor does trouble sprout from the ground; but human beings are born to trouble just as sparks fly upward (‫( ”)עוף‬5:6–7). Here, he repeats the pair “misery” (‫ )און‬and “trouble” (‫ )עמל‬from Ps 90:10 (cf. Job 4:8).27 He also uses the word which concludes that verse, as the psalmist writes of humankind’s limited days: “they are soon gone, and we fly away (‫)ונעפה‬.” These words further reinforce Eliphaz’s allusion to the psalm, but they also appear to contradict his earlier statement that humans reap the trouble they sow (4:8). There, with another potential allusion to the

23.  David J. A. Clines, Job, 3 vols., WBC 17–18B (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1989), 1:133–34. 24.  Newsom, Book of Job, 141–43. 25.  M. Riffaterre, “Compulsory Reader Response: The Intertextual Drive,” in Intertextuality: Theories and Practices, ed. M. Worton and J. Still (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1991), 58. 26.  For this uncommon connection, see Carol A. Newsom, “The Book of Job,” in 1 & 2 Maccabees, Introduction to Hebrew Poetry, Job, Psalms, NIB 4 (Nashville: Abingdon, 1996), 378. 27.  Both Chrysostom and Luther remark on the shared characterization of life in these passages (Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, 55 vols. [St. Louis: Concordia, 1955], 13:123; John Chrysostom, Kommentar zu Hiob, PTS 35 [Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990], 70).

14

Human Interaction with the Natural World

psalm,28 he had split its presentation of universal human transience in two between the blessed righteous and the cursed wicked. Unlike the psalmist, he also employed the third person to claim membership in the former category rather than the latter. In ch. 5, though, Eliphaz declares misery and trouble do not sprout from the earth, and his claim that humans are “born to trouble” in v. 7 further lightens the load of human responsibility. Interpreters have suggested several emendations to reconcile the texts.29 However, in light of the context of Eliphaz’s curse of the fool (5:3) and the possible allusion to the curse motif in Gen 3:17–19 here,30 the contrast between the agricultural images in Job 5:6 and 4:8 is best understood to communicate that affliction and trouble do not sprout from the ground spontaneously. They result from the plowing and sowing of iniquity Eliphaz described earlier (4:8) and that the fool embodies (5:2–5). This reading brings these verses into agreement with the rest of Eliphaz’s speech and also continues his interpretation of the psalm, which may similarly allude to Gen 3:17–19.31 In order to move Job from complaint to confession, he has taken the ambiguous relation of sin and trouble in Psalm 9032 and emphasized human culpability as its cause. Bildad (Chapter 8) Bildad, the next friend to speak, also applies the psalm’s destructive imagery solely to the wicked. He launches into an extended plant analogy (vv. 11–22), expanding the imagery in Ps 90:5–6. Whereas the psalmist describes an unspecified “them” as “grass” (‫ )חציר‬that flowers and is renewed before it fades and “withers” (ׁ‫)יבש‬, Bildad applies the metaphor 28.  The four closely clustered words, “iniquity” (‫ )און‬and “trouble” (‫ )עמל‬in Job 4:8 and Ps 90:10, and “consumed” (‫ )כלה‬and “anger” (‫ )אף‬in Job 4:9 and Ps 90:7, only appear together in one other chapter in the Hebrew Bible, Isa 10. 29.  See Clines, Job, 1:141–42. 30.  Note the repetition of “human beings” (‫)אדם‬, “soil” (‫)אדמה‬, “dust” (‫)עפר‬, and “sprout” (‫)יצא‬. See, e.g., Pope, Job, 42; Clines, Job, 1:141; Leo G. Perdue, Wisdom in Revolt: Metaphorical Theology in the Book of Job, JSOTSup 112 (Sheffield: Almond, 1991), 119. 31.  Ps 90:3; cf. Gen 3:19. See Forster, Vergänglichkeitsmotiv, 176–77; Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51–100, Hermeneia, trans. Linda M. Maloney (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 422. 32.  Thomas Krüger, “Psalm 90 und die ‘Vergänglichkeit des Menschen’,” Bib 75 (1994): 191–219 (191); Richard J. Clifford, “Psalm 90: Wisdom Meditation or Communal Lament?” in The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception, ed. Peter W. Flint and Patrick D. Miller, Jr., VTSup 99 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 190–205 (190).

K

“Ask the Plants”

15

only to “all who forget God” (v. 13), described as “grass” (‫ )חציר‬that “withers” (ׁ‫( )יבש‬v. 12). Like the plant, Bildad declares, “the hope of the godless shall perish” (v. 13). In his use of this parable of two plants, “the voice of tradition” speaks,33 and it does so with the psalm’s words. Yet, the “story” he draws from this natural analogy differs by associating grasslike human transience exclusively with impiety, advocating the conclusion that Job “has wilted like an impious plant.”34 Bildad may include an allusion to the tree imagery in Psalm 1 in 8:11–13 to buttress his adaption of the metaphor in Psalm 90. He refers to plants’ dependence on water for growth (cf. Ps 1:3) and then states, “The hope of the godless will perish,” a phrase with syntactical and lexical affinities with Ps 1:6, in which the way of the wicked perishes (cf. also Prov 10:28).35 Job (Chapter 13) In ch. 13, Job responds to his friends’ allusions to the floral metaphor in Psalm 90 with his own allusion to Psalm 1. Other aspects of this psalm have already appeared in the dialogue.36 Now, Job alludes to its claim that the “leaves” (‫ )עלה‬of the righteous do not wither, while the wicked are like “chaff (‫ )מץ‬that the wind drives away (‫( ”)תדפנו‬vv. 3–4). Parodying the psalm, he asks God, “Will you frighten a windblown leaf (‫ )עלה נדף‬and pursue dry chaff (‫( ”?)קשׁ‬Job 13:25). By reversing the psalm’s image for righteous flourishing, Job contrasts his experience with what the psalm teaches.37 As Marvin Pope observes, the withering leaf is a common image for the destruction of the wicked (he mentions Isa 1:30; 34:4; 64:6; Jer 8:13; Ezek 47:12; Ps 1:3), and windblown chaff also appears several times with the same meaning (Pope notes Pss 1:4; 83:14,38 but see also Isa 17:13; Hos 13:3; Ps 35:5; Job 21:18). However, Pope concludes regarding Job 13:25 that “the use of both leaf and chaff in the sense of a helpless and insignificant victim of 33.  Newsom, Book of Job, 131. 34.  Doak, Consider Leviathan, 141. 35.  See Yohan Pyeon, You Have Not Spoken What Is Right About Me: Intertextuality and the Book of Job, Studies in Biblical Literature 45 (New York: Lang, 2003), 151–52; Phil J. Botha, “Intertextuality and the Interpretation of Psalm 1,” in Psalms and Mythology, ed. Dirk J. Human, JSOTSup (New York: T&T Clark, 2007), 69. 36.  Job 5:13–13; 10:3; cf. Ps 1:1–2 (Kynes, My Psalm, 151–53). 37.  See Clines, Job, 1:320. 38.  The latter, like Job 13:25, uses the word ׁ‫קש‬, which may be better translated “straw,” but still similarly communicates insignificance. See Gustaf Hermann

16

Human Interaction with the Natural World

such overwhelming power occurs nowhere else in the [Old Testament].”39 However, he has just mentioned both Ps 1:3 and Ps 1:4 as parallels to each of these images;40 there is one other place where the images are combined: Psalm 1. In fact, Job 13:25 and Ps 1:3–4 are the only two passages in the Hebrew Bible in which the word ‫“( עלה‬leaf”) and either word for “chaff” (ׁ‫ קש‬or ‫ )מץ‬appear together. Beyond that, both Job and the psalm use the rare verb ‫“( נדף‬to drive away”). Underscoring this link, Job plays on that verb in the second half of the verse with the aurally similar word ‫“( רדף‬to pursue”). Evoking the psalm’s contrast between flourishing tree and driven chaff, Job declares that God is treating him like “the wicked.” By attributing the punishment of the wicked to God, he even goes further than the psalm, which leaves divine agency in judgment unmentioned. God’s inexplicable wrath (cf. Job 13:24) has invalidated the psalm’s confident use of botanical imagery, like the friends, to carve the world into two distinct moral spheres. Job (Chapter 14) Continuing to project his experience “onto the wider canvas of all humanity,” Job opens the next chapter, “A mortal (‫)אדם‬, born of woman, few of days and full of trouble (‫( ”)רגז‬14:1; cf. Ps 90:9–10).41 This reference to human transience suggests Psalm 90 as a subtext for Job’s speech.42 In v. 2, Job takes up the psalm’s analogy of floral ephemerality. Though this image appears as a common formula across the canon,43 that does not necessarily invalidate the Job poet’s allusion to the particular instance of that formula in Psalm 90 here. Beyond their subject matter, the two texts share the rare word ‫“( מלל‬fade” or “wither”), which only Dalman, Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina, 7 vols., Schriften des Deutschen PalästinaInstituts (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1964), 3:137; Harold Henry Rowley, Job, NCB, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 101. 39.  Pope, Job, 102. 40.  For the parallel to Ps 1:3, see Luis Alonso Schökel and José Luis Sicre Díaz, Job: Comentario teológico y literario, Nueva Biblia Española (Madrid: Ediciones Cristiandad, 1983), 229. For the parallel to Ps 1:4, see C. J. Ball, The Book of Job (Oxford: Clarendon, 1922), 226. 41.  Clines, Job, 1:288, 324. 42.  Robert Abelava, Le motif de la fragilité de l’homme dans le Psaume 90: Une analyse sémantique et contextuelle, Altes Testament und Moderne 26 (Zurich: Lit, 2013), 242–43. 43.  See n. 13 above.

K

“Ask the Plants”

17

appears six times in the Hebrew Bible with this meaning.44 Job 14:2 also uses a word for “flower” (‫ )ציץ‬from the same root as the verb “to flourish” (‫ )צוץ‬in Ps 90:6. These passages uniquely combine ‫ מלל‬with either word. This verse introduces another subtext, Job’s response to his friends’ interpretation of the psalm. The shared use of the word ‫“( יצא‬goes forth”) to describe the blossoming of a plant (cf. Job 8:16) suggests that Job is countering Bildad’s plant analogy.45 Job takes different words from the floral analogy of Ps 90:5–6, so that between him and Bildad a nearly comprehensive allusion to the psalm’s plant imagery emerges. However, against Bildad, and Eliphaz (Job 4–5), Job claims all are subject to this fate. Questioning the intensity of God’s judgmental gaze on one as insignificant as himself in the following verse (14:3), the righteous Job takes the brevity of life motif from the previous verses, which often grounds a call for mercy (cf. Pss 103:13–14; 90:13–17), challenges Bildad’s retributive interpretation of it,46 and turns it into a reproach against God.47 As it did for the psalmist, human transience grounds Job’s demand that God turn away his piercing gaze (cf. Ps 90:8) from shortlived humanity so that they “may enjoy (‫)רצה‬, like laborers, their days (‫( ”)יומו‬v. 6; cf. Ps 90:14).48 Beginning in 14:7, Job returns to this motif with an extended treatment of the plant analogy from v. 2, Bildad’s earlier speech,49 and Ps 90:5–6. Job repeats the word “shoot” (‫ )יוֹנקת‬in v. 7 that appears in 8:16 and only four other places in the Hebrew Bible.50 He claims, “There is hope (‫ )תקוה‬for a tree” (cf. Job 8:13) that “if it is cut down, that it will sprout (‫ )חלף‬again” (v. 7), repeating the word used twice for grass sprouting in Ps 90:5–6, the only other place in the Hebrew Bible where it describes a plant’s renewal.51 This word then returns in noun form, as Job wonders whether mortals, like the tree, have any hope of “renewal” (‫( )חליפת‬v. 14). 44.  See Robert Gordis, The Book of Job: Commentary, New Translation, and Special Studies, Moreshet 2 (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1978), 147. 45.  Habel, Job, 240. 46.  See John E. Hartley, The Book of Job, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 231. 47.  Georg Fohrer, Das Buch Hiob, KAT 16 (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1963), 255; cf. Perdue, Wisdom in Revolt, 156–57 n. 2. 48.  See Abelava, Psaume 90, 253. 49.  J. Gerald Janzen, Job, Int (Atlanta: John Knox, 1985), 108. 50.  See Habel, Job, 177. 51.  See Franz Delitzsch, Das Buch Iob (Leipzig: Dörfling & Franke, 1864), 140; Gordis, Job, 148; Clines, Job, 1:28.

18

Human Interaction with the Natural World

The preceding verses seem already to have rejected that possibility, however. Mortals, Job argues, are not like a dead tree that may bud again at the scent of water (vv. 8–9), but like the waters of a lake or river that “dry up” (ׁ‫( )יבש‬v. 11; cf. Ps 90:6). The figure of the tree belies a “bitter irony”; what at first appears to be a symbol of hope only confirms Job’s despair.52 Job identifies with humanity’s floral ephemerality, but rejects the comparison of humans with trees (cf. Ps 1:3) and the hope it might provide.53 This indicates Job’s view of “the unreliability of nature to mete out decisions in accordance with justice and the impossibility of comparing human and natural flourishing.”54 He adds poignancy to this rejection later, claiming that before his affliction, “my roots spread out to the waters, with the dew all night on my branches” (29:19). Unlike the tree in Psalm 1 “planted by streams of water,” Job’s hope has evaporated (14:11). Yet, amidst this despondence, Job’s faith resurfaces. But, his flight of hope in vv. 13–17 crashes again into complaint at life’s brevity in vv. 18–19. Job’s claim that even the “mountain” (‫“ )הר‬crumbles” (‫ )נבל‬and the torrents “wash away” (‫ )שׁטף‬the soil of the “earth” (‫ )ארץ‬resonates with the psalmist’s declaration that God’s existence “before the mountains (‫ )הר‬were brought forth and the earth (‫ )ארץ‬and world (‫ )תבל‬were formed” demonstrates the deity’s eternal constancy (Ps 90:2). Though ‫הר‬ and ‫ ארץ‬commonly appear in close proximity, the verb ‫נבל‬, which resonates aurally with “world” (‫ )תבל‬in the psalm, creates a closer connection, reinforced thematically by Job’s literary erosion of the analogy of stability on which the psalmist builds his hope in God. Further, ‫ נבל‬generally has a floral subject (cf. Pss 1:3; 37:2), and thus suggests a further “veiled allusion” to the opening analogy from nature in Job 14:2,55 and thus also Ps 90:5–6, and perhaps even Ps 1:3. As even the mountains and earth may dematerialize, so, Job accuses God, “You destroy (‫ )אבד‬the hope (‫)תקוה‬ of mortals” (v. 19). In so doing, Job responds to Bildad’s contention that “the hope (‫ )תקוה‬of the godless shall perish (‫( ”)אבד‬8:13) by claiming that all humanity, and not merely the wicked, suffer God’s chastening. Though Ps 1:3 had promised that the leaf of the righteous would not “wither” (‫)נבל‬, God’s destructive power causes even hope as solid as a mountain to “wither” (‫( )נבל‬Job 14:18–19), as he causes, not “the way of the wicked,” as in Ps 1:6, but all human hope, to “perish” (‫)אבד‬.

52.  Newsom, “Job,” 441. Similarly, Horst, Hiob, 187. 53.  Doak, Consider Leviathan, xxiii, 153–54. 54.  Ibid., 176. 55.  Habel, Job, 244.

K

“Ask the Plants”

19

Bildad (Chapter 18) In ch. 18, Bildad draws again on the disputed floral trope from Psalm 90 in an extended description of the fate of the wicked (18:5–21). He claims of the wicked, “Their roots (‫ )שׁרשׁ‬dry up (‫ )יבשׁ‬beneath, and their branches (‫ )קציר‬wither (‫ )מלל‬above” (v. 16). Recalling the tree imagery of “roots” (ׁ‫ )שׁרש‬and “branches” (‫ )קציר‬with which Job elaborated on the psalmist’s similitude in 14:8–9 and two words from Ps 90:6, ׁ‫ יבש‬and ‫מלל‬, Bildad reasserts his application of the psalmic analogy exclusively to the wicked (ch. 8) in contrast to Job’s generalization (ch. 14). His focus on the wicked leads him to describe them as a withered tree, as opposed to the depiction of the righteous as a flourishing tree in Psalm 1. His use of merismus here (root and branch) to drive the wicked out of the world through “the symbolic action of language” reflects the view of Psalm 1 (and many other ancient Near Eastern texts) that good endures through “participation in the structures of creation itself,” while evil, despite powerful appearances, disintegrates because it lacks roots in that order.56 Job (Chapter 21) Job is not convinced that his experience conforms to this limited vision. He responds with a counter-narrative that questions Bildad’s metaphors.57 Lamenting the prosperity of the wicked, he asks, “How often are they like straw before the wind, and like chaff that the storm carries away?” (Job 21:18). Though, as noted above,58 chaff imagery appears several times in the Hebrew Bible, Ps 1:4 is the only other place this botanical metaphor is applied to the “wicked” (‫ )רשׁעים‬generally.59 Job responds to Bildad’s earlier claim that the wicked wither (Job 18:16; cf. Pss 1:3–4; 90:6), immediately after a similar allusive questioning of Bildad’s claim in the same speech that “the light of the wicked is put out” (Job 18:5; cf. Job 21:17), which is itself an allusion to Prov 13:9. Further supporting an allusion to Ps 1:4 here is Job’s declaration of revulsion toward “the plans of the wicked” (‫ )עצת רשׁעים‬two verses earlier (21:16; cf. Ps 1:1).

56.  Newsom, Book of Job, 121. 57.  See ibid., 162. 58.  See pp. 13–14, above. 59.  For allusion to Ps 1 here, see, e.g., Friedrich Umbreit, Das Buch Hiob, 2nd ed. (Heidelberg: Mohr, 1832), 211; Edouard Dhorme, A Commentary on the Book of Job, trans. Harold Knight (London: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1967), 16; Clines, Job, 2:529.

20

Human Interaction with the Natural World

Conclusion So, what wisdom do the plants offer for Job’s situation? The friends read Psalm 90 through the lens of Psalm 1 by taking the universal comparison of humanity to short-lived grass and applying it only to the wicked. Job, however, reads Psalm 1 through the lens of Psalm 90. He claims that Psalm 1, like the tree analogy it employs, does not fit human experience. Though he is righteous, his “leaf” has withered and God “pursues” him like the “wind” does “chaff” (Job 13:25), while the wicked escape this fate (Job 21:18). But Job does not reject appeals to botanical analogies altogether. He draws on the comparison of humanity to short-lived grass to entreat God for mercy as the psalmist does (Ps 90:5–6; cf. Job 14:1–6). Even so, he proves that these analogies have their limits. By presenting a “competing nature narrative,” he undercuts the friends’ efforts “to lay down nature as a final law.”60 In contrast to the claims of Ps 1:3, he argues, humans are not like trees; when felled, they cannot sprout again, and their “hope,” even if rock solid, withers (Job 14:7–10). Job thus calls into question the reliability of applying both texts and nature analogies to his situation. As Newsom puts it, “In repudiating the iconic story of the fate of the wicked, Job’s words are an attack on the reality of the entire moral world,” which leaves it in a “turmoil that provides no warrant for the construction of a moral society.”61 Attending, however, to the rhetorical purposes both textual allusions and natural analogies play in the dialogue suggests they hold a deeper significance. The friends employ both to attempt to silence Job’s complaints. Job, however, uses them to respond to their charges, and, more importantly, to attempt to persuade God to rectify the injustice of his situation. He depicts the chaos of a world crumbling without the foundation of divine justice in order to drive God to restore order to that world. Though Job speaks “disarticulated” psalmic motifs,62 he does so to invite God to rearticulate them. If God cannot be expected to uphold the retributive worldview of Psalm 1, then Job’s protests about his innocent suffering are pointless. Far from being “dubious” to the author of Job,63 the distinction between the fates of the righteous and wicked in Psalm 1 are fundamental to his theology. As the floral depiction of human transience serves the appeal for divine mercy with which Psalm 90 concludes (vv. 13–17), it 60.  Doak, Consider Leviathan, 180, 179. 61.  Newsom, Book of Job, 124. 62.  Ibid., 136. 63.  Alter, Poetry, 115.

K

“Ask the Plants”

21

does the same for Job. But his parody of Psalm 1 strengthens that appeal. His question, “Does it seem good to you to oppress, to despise the work of your hands and favor the schemes of the wicked?” (Job 10:3), expresses the same incredulity as Abraham’s question, “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” (Gen 18:25). Job’s faith in God’s justice drives him to persist in questioning God’s current behavior. As the friends use Psalm 90 to emphasize the moral and ontological difference between Job and God, Job aims “to reduce the alterity of the divine and the human by stressing the common moral nature of God and human beings” as they meet on “the common ground” of justice.64 Job’s contest with the friends is a battle over prayer, whether Job must make a “sacral confession” (22:21–30; cf. 5:8; 8:20–21; 11:13–15),65 so the language of prayer is naturally a primary weapon.66 The friends’ moral imagination, their application of the psalms and their metaphors to Job’s experience, is too simple, too small. Job’s response, however, is not to reject the psalms’ vision of the world, but to expand and deepen it by prying apart their words and metaphors, fragmenting and recombining them so that they may encapsulate his experience.67 The dialogical interpretation of the plant metaphors in Psalm 1 and 90 in Job, therefore, illuminates their relationship within the Psalter. The suffering of a righteous man like Job strains the worldview of Psalm 1.68 As the friends demonstrate, one response to that epistemological conflict is “nihilation,” denying the possibility of Job’s righteousness (e.g., Job 22:5). They interpret Job’s experience much as Walter Brueggemann argues the introductory psalm insists the Psalter be read. Psalm 1, he argues, conforms the depictions of suffering which follow, such as in Psalm 90 to its clear moral worldview by reading them “against the grain.”69 John Kartje, however, proposes that the absolutism of Psalm 1 “deliberately provoke[s]” questions about its truth, which the following psalms explore. In Psalm 90, then, rather than nihilation, the psalmist’s

64.  Newsom, Book of Job, 150. Later, she notes the similarity with Gen 18:25 (153). 65.  Von Rad, Weisheit in Israel, 222. 66.  Newsom, Book of Job, 127. 67.  See ibid., 131. 68.  Kartje, Wisdom Epistemology, 84. 69.  Walter Brueggemann, “Bounded by Obedience and Praise: The Psalms as Canon,” in The Psalms and the Life of Faith, ed. Patrick D. Miller (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 66.

22

Human Interaction with the Natural World

request to be taught to count his days and thus “gain a wise heart” (v. 12) seeks “an understanding of life that only Yhwh’s wisdom can supply.”70 In dialogue with Psalm 90 and Job’s experience, the plant metaphor of Psalm 1 is not as naive as it may first appear. The promise that the leaf of the righteous will not wither tacitly recognizes some threat to the righteous precisely because of their righteousness, just as Job experiences.71 Similarly, the wind-driven fate of the wicked does not guarantee the righteous exemption from the blustery vicissitudes of life, just assurance of withstanding them,72 just as Job does. Righteous Job’s suffering verifies the universal grasslike frailty of human life (Ps 90), but YHWH’s revelation (Job 38–41) and Job’s eventual vindication and restoration reinforces the “consolatory character” of Psalm 1.73 It does not promise immediate punishment for the wicked or freedom from suffering for the righteous, but eventual justice (Ps 1:5–6) and the power to persevere. Thanks to Psalm 1, there is hope for a righteous tree like Job.

70.  Kartje, Wisdom Epistemology, 131; cf. Gerhard von Rad, “Der 90. Psalm,” in Gottes Wirken in Israel, ed. Odil H. Steck (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1974), 268–83 (275–76). 71.  John Goldingay, Psalms, 3 vols., BCOTWP (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 1:85. 72.  The midrash on Ps 1 claims the tree’s planting (‫ )שׁתל‬emphasizes that “even if all the winds come and blow at the righteous man, they will be unable to budge him from his place” (William Gordon Braude, The Midrash on Psalms, 2 vols., YJS 13 [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959], 1:14). 73.  Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg, Commentary on the Psalms, 3 vols., Clark’s Foreign Theological Library 2/12, trans. Patrick Fairbairn and John Thomson (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1846–48), 1:2.

Chapter 2

G

’ V

H

A

J

38:39–39:30

Michael V. Fox and Katharine J. Dell

After Job’s long series of complaints and the friends’ counter arguments, God responds. In his first speech, he challenges Job to answer a series of rhetorical questions that define God’s extraordinary powers in creating the world and describe its astronomical and meteorological glories (Job 38:1–38).1 Then, he turns to animal life (38:39–39:30). Next, in his second speech, God describes at length two animals of special power and majesty: Behemoth (40:15–24) and Leviathan (40:25–41:26).2 The present essay honors Tova Forti, a scholar whose expertise in bible and zoology has contributed extensively to the study of animals in the Hebrew Bible. It examines the first series of animals in God’s reply to Job. The concern is not primarily with zoological identifications and features. Those are well treated in various studies and commentaries.3 The central issue here is the rhetorical function of these descriptions: just what they are seeking to convey. In other words, after hearing any of these questions if Job had dared to ask, “So what? What does this have to do with me?,”4 what could God have responded? God’s response consists of a description of various animals, most of them wild, which will be considered in turn.

1.  See Michael V. Fox, “Job 38 and God’s Rhetoric,” Semeia 19 (1981): 53–61. 2.  See Michael V. Fox, “Behemoth and Leviathan,” Bib 93 (2012): 261–67. 3.  Particularly useful is David J. A. Clines’s commentary on these chapters. See D. J. A. Clines, Job 38–42, WBC 18B (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2011). See also his extensive bibliography to these chapters on pp. 1042–43, 1046–48 (ordered under articles and monographs for specific animals). 4.  In fact, Job’s first response after this opening speech of God in 40:4–5 is an acknowledgment of God’s supremacy such that Job feels that he cannot answer God’s words.

24

Human Interaction with the Natural World

Why choose these descriptions? What rhetorical function do they serve? We shall argue that they illuminate the very purposes and activity of God himself as creator and sustainer of the natural world. Furthermore, in their emphasis on wild animals they diminish a human-centered perspective regarding the domestic use of animals. They also demonstrate God’s power and control alongside his intimate knowledge and care for the ways of all animals. The Lion Do you hunt food for the lioness, and fill the appetite of cubs, when they crouch in the lairs, sit in the hedge for prey? (38:39–40)5

The answer must be “No, but somebody does,” and this somebody must be God. This is not to say that God stalks prey like a lion or crouches in a lair like one,6 but that he provides prey for the lion cubs by creating a world in which they are cared for as if they had a god hunting on their behalf. It is God who provides, who knows when the cubs are hungry and who creates and sustains the very characteristics that maximize their chances of success when hunting for food.7 The lion is a well-known animal in the pages of the Hebrew Bible, but this aspect of provision for its young is an unusual and compelling one.8 The Raven Who prepares provisions for the raven, when his young cry to God, wandering without food? (38:41)

5.  All translations are our own unless otherwise stated. 6.  Lions do not use caves for shelter, but tend to lie in scrub or thickets. Cf. Ps 10:8–9, where the lurking of a lion in its lair is a metaphor for the operations of the wicked (“they lurk in secret like a lion in its covert,” v. 9a [NRSV]). The picture of lions staying in their lairs until evening, when they will hunt, is also alluded to in Akhenaten’s hymn to the sun (ANET, 370a). 7.  Job 4:11 has already alluded to the fate of lion cubs if their parents cannot find food. The lion is a creature associated with kings, and images of strength and dominance. It is known as the king of beasts and yet is recognized as hostile and dangerous to humans (in 2 Kgs 17:26–27 God sends lions to destroy the godless). 8.  See the recent study of leonine imagery in the Hebrew Bible—Brent Strawn, What Is Stronger than a Lion? Leonine Image and Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East, OBO 212 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005).

F

D

God’s View of His Animals in Job 38–39

25

The answer must be God, who hears the raven chicks’ cries.9 Quite striking is the picture of the chicks crying to God—praying for food— when they are in danger of starvation. They know God, and God knows them. He is not just the grand creator; he is the father caring for every creature, even the most obscure and helpless. There is a powerful contrast between the mighty lion and the small bird, both engaged in the important task of provision for their young. This illuminates the nature of God too as provider and nurturer. The Rock Goats Do you know when the rock goats give birth? Can you observe the birthing of does? Can you count the months of their gestation, know just when they give birth? They crouch down and deliver their young. They release their birth-cords. Their young grow strong and multiply in the field. They go forth and do not return. (39:1–4)

Job, of course, cannot know these things, but God can, in fact must, or the intricate mechanisms of birthing, especially of inaccessible creatures, would not work. These animals, the rock goats and does, live far from human habitation and the doe naturally shies away from human interaction.10 Here, as in 38:42, God is in the details, caring for the intimate needs 9.  Some scholars have suggested that the raven does not belong at this point in the description and they move the verse to fit in with descriptions of other birds (hawk and vulture in 39:26–30). An emendation of ‫“( עורב‬raven”) to ‫“( ערב‬evening”) could also lead to seeing the verse as a continuation of the description of the lion. However, such an emendation is not necessary. One connection between lion and raven is that both are carnivorous, a second is that they both, like many other animals, need to hunt to feed their young. Ps 147:9 describes God as providing food for the young of ravens, an unclean bird which feeds on carcasses (Lev 11:15; Deut 14:14), but one which takes great care with its young, rarely leaving them alone. 10.  The “rock goat” or ibex, sometimes also known as a mountain goat, tends to live in harsh, mountainous environments. They live in small herds, away from human habitation and their light tan coloring provides a good camouflage; cf. the mention of them in Ps 104:18. A doe is a female deer which tends to dwell in woods, hidden from sight; cf. Prov. 5:19, where a “lovely hind” is a metaphor for a good wife. Some argue that this is a she-goat, rather than a doe, eliding more closely with the immediately prior description of rock goats. References to wild goats in rabbinic and classical sources were first collected by Samuel Bochart, Hierozoicon sive bipartitum opus de animalibus Sacrae Scripturai (London: Thomas Rycroft, 1663), 1.3.17.

26

Human Interaction with the Natural World

of every creature, however obscure and far-flung. God also knows the times of gestation, different for each creature, and is involved in the stages of life as youngsters become independent and free, and give birth, in turn, to new life—their own offspring.11 God’s care is for diverse life-forms.12 The Wild Ass Who set the onager free, and who has loosened the bonds of the wild ass to whom have I given the steppe as his home, the salt plain as his dwelling? He laughs at the city’s crowd, and does not heed the shouts of the driver. He spies out13 the mountains for his pasturing, seeking for all greenery. (39:5–8)

The independence of the onager does not attest to God’s providence directly, but it is a quality that God has imbued in him. It is unusual that God speaks of himself in the first person as the one who gave to the onager the steppe as its home. This creature has never been tied with cords or subsequently set loose—this is an impossibility for such a freespirited beast. This description attests to God’s generosity in giving to each creature what it needs. He provides for these wild animals14 to which humans have nothing to offer. It seems strange that the description speaks

11.  Cf. Qoh 3:1–8, the poem on time in which God knows the times of all human activities. See Michael V. Fox, “Qohelet’s Catalogue of Times,” JNSL 24 (1998): 24–39. Also Michael V. Fox, A Time to Tear Down and a Time to Build Up: A Rereading of Ecclesiastes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999). 12.  Clines, Job 38–42, thinks that the diversity of the created world is the key message of these chapters. He writes, “The central point of all the animal descriptions seems rather to be that Yahweh has filled his created world with a vast variety of life forms, each with its own qualities and peculiarities, in which he evidently takes a delight. That is the substance of his reply to Job’s demand for justice; it can only mean that the interests of the human being Job cannot be a top priority for Yahweh” (1133). 13.  ‫“( יתור‬spies out”) taken as 3rd masc. sing. impf. of ‫“( תור‬seek out, explore”). 14.  The onager, nowadays an endangered species, has always defied domestication. It is a wilder relative of the ass/horse family, inhabiting barren areas of mountain steppes or semi-desert or desert plains. Salty soil is infertile for human crops, but good for onager grazing (cf. Jer 17:6). Onager and wild ass are one and the same species in this verse. References to wild asses are quite common in the Hebrew Bible (e.g. Gen 16:12; Job 24:5; Ps 104:11; Jer 2:24; 14:6; 48:6; Hos 8:9; Dan 5:21 and beyond (e.g. Sir 13:19). The Wisdom of Ahiqar mentions its independent spirit: “He said to a wild ass, Let me ride you, and I will feed you. The wild ass replied, Keep your food, and spare me your riding” (ANET, 430b).

F

D

God’s View of His Animals in Job 38–39

27

of an animal who lives far from the city as laughing “at the cities’ crowd,” and not heeding “the shouts of the driver.” This is an indication of its lack of fear in whatever situation it might find itself in,15 but it also provides a contrast to the situation of its domesticated relatives.16 The Wild Ox Would the wild ox be willing to serve you, would he lodge in your stall? Could you bind the wild ox to the furrow by his rope? Would he plough the plains after you? Could you rely on him—because his strength is great— And leave to him your produce? Could you trust him to return, and gather the seed of your threshing floor17? (39:9–12)

The wild ox is the aurochs, an ancestor of modern cattle, but now extinct.18 It was enormous and untameable, though it was in some places hunted.19 The challenges in vv. 9–12 do not pertain to things God does—for he does not have stalls or ploughs—but to things that Job could do with normal-sized, domesticated animals but not with the wild ox, even if he tried.20 The implied answer to these rhetorical questions is “no” in every

15.  The wild ass provides a stark contrast to the domesticated ass who is under human control and in bondage to humankind. 16.  The same “laughing” in the sense of lack of fear is used also of the ostrich in v. 18, the war horse in v. 22 and of Leviathan in 41:21. Cf. Job 5:22 in which Eliphaz’s vision of Job’s restoration is that “At destruction and famine you shall laugh, and shall not fear the wild animals of the earth” (NRSV). 17.  Reading ‫זרע גרנך‬, thus emending with M. H. Pope, Job, AB 15, 3rd ed. (Garden City: Doubleday, 1973). 18.  See Clines, Job 38–42, 1123. Clines mentions that this creature was understood by the LXX as a unicorn and as a rhinoceros by Aquila and the Vulgate. This creature is repeatedly depicted in the blue and gold tiles on the Ishtar Gate at Babylon, alternating with dragons. 19.  The aurochs was herbivorous and preferred woods and hilly areas. In the Hebrew Bible it is mentioned for its long, curved horns, dangerous to its foes (Num 23:22; 24:8 [where God is likened to the horns of a wild ox in his destructive acts on Israel’s behalf at the Exodus]; Deut 33:17; Ps 22:21 [22] “from the horns of the wild oxen you have rescued me” [NRSV]; 92:10 [11]). 20.  The implied contrast is with the domesticated ox, which is docile and obedient and can be relied upon to do these domestic tasks. The aurochs would not agree to such a life of drudgery, such is its free spirit.

28

Human Interaction with the Natural World

case. As with the ass, the contrast between wild and tamed is key. As God is free, so are these wild beasts free and proud to be so. Power is the issue here, and power like this Job does not have. Job might once have countered, “So what?” After all, he once owned normal oxen who did these tasks. However, a wild, untamed animal is an illustration of God’s own freedom and power to shape each animal as he desires, creating a uniqueness for each one. But Job does not counter God as Job is not in the mood to answer back, as his submission in 40:4–5 demonstrates. The Ostrich The ostrich’s wings are playful, though her pinions lack feathers.21 For she abandons her eggs on the ground, and warms them on the dust, And she forgets that a foot may scatter them, some wild beast crush them. She is cruel to her offspring, as if they weren’t hers. In vain is her toil, without fear. For God has made her devoid of wisdom, and did not assign her understanding. When she flies on high, she laughs at the horse and its rider.” (39:13–18)

The ostrich is a paradox, a bird that cannot fly, but runs with a speed that seems like flying.22 But more striking is the fact that it endangers its eggs yet still propagates.23 That is the real paradox. God’s wisdom can defy reason. Wild animals behave according to God’s rules, not according to human moral paradigms. This again is a creature that roams uninhabited wastelands. The idea that she “forgets” is not that she once had wisdom and has forgotten it, rather she has never had wisdom, at least not of the type any human being might recognize. What is perceived by humans 21.  The translation of this obscure line follows Pope, Job, 308–9, reading ‫חסרה‬ (“lacks”) for ‫“( חסידה‬stork”). This is a strange sentiment, though since the ostrich is well known for its pinions covered in feathers, leading some commentators to phrase it as a question—i.e. “Do her pinions lack feathers?” 22.  After the cheetah, the ostrich is the fastest land animal in the world, capable not only of running extremely fast, but also of changing direction abruptly whilst at the same time running at full speed, wings outstretched but the body too heavy to lift off from the ground. 23.  The ostrich lays eggs in shallow depressions in the soil, leaving them vulnerable to being destroyed by predators. The males incubate the eggs at night, the females during the day, although sometimes they stray, at times to tend more than one nest of eggs. The ostrich’s reputation for cruelty is over-exaggerated, although Lam 4:3 also mentions the cruel behavior of ostriches in the wilderness. It is apparently quite hard for a human to tread on these eggs as they are large and have a hard shell.

F

D

God’s View of His Animals in Job 38–39

29

as carelessness with its eggs, even stupidity,24 is a matter of delight for its creator, God, who did not choose to assign wisdom to this particular creature (v. 17). The ostrich “laughs” as she overtakes the horse, because of her superior speed that enables her to escape all predators, human or animal.25 This laughing may also refer to the strange rumbling, whooping and screeching sounds that ostriches make by inflating their necks, often in the context of mating. The Horse Do you give the horse might, do you dress his neck with a mane? Do you make him roar like locusts? The majesty of his snort is a terror. He digs in the valley and rejoices, he goes forth toward weapons in strength. He laughs at fear and does not tremble, and does not shy away from the sword. The quiver rattles against him,26 the sword-blade and the javelin. With noise and agitation he swallows up the earth. At the sound of the horn he says “Aha!” and from afar he smells the battle, the thundering of the captains and the trumpet blast. (39:19–25)

The war-horse radiates a might that attests to its creator’s own power.27 As Clines says, “Humans may think that horses they use in battle are doing their bidding and are subservient to their needs; the poet knows differently, that this creature acts from its own self, reaching ecstatic heights of pleasure in the midst of awful and lethal danger.”28 Here we do not have a wild/domesticated contrast; rather, the author is drawing out the inherent wildness of creatures that appear tamed.29 It is a human misunderstanding 24.  There is a long tradition in popular culture that the ostrich is a stupid bird. “More stupid than an ostrich” reads an Arab proverb. However, this indicates a lack of understanding of its habits and in fact its speed alone makes it somewhat superior to other animals. 25.  Its “laughter” here shows the lack of fear that this superior speed of running gives it; cf. the similar laugh of the wild ass in v. 7 also through lack of fear. 26.  Reading ‫“( תרנה‬rattles/twangs/cries out”) from the verb ‫רנן‬, as in Prov 1:20; 8:3. 27.  Cf. Prov 21:31, “The horse is ready for the day of battle, but victory belongs to the Lord.” 28.  Clines, Job 38–42, 1128–29. Clines points out that there are ca. 140 references to horses in the Hebrew Bible and that they were rarely used for riding in those days, rather being used, even in warfare, for pulling chariots. 29.  Some think that this long description of the war-horse is out of place here because the horse is not a wild animal. However, this description indicates that, although trained, the horse’s spirit is not tamed or downtrodden. In this aspect, it is the same as the other wild animals in this description.

30

Human Interaction with the Natural World

to think that they have ultimate control. Highlighted here is the horse’s strength, as shown in its mane and strong neck. The comparison of its roar to locusts is a strange one (however, compare with Jer 51:27; Joel 2:4), perhaps indicating the quivering of a horse when excited or agitated which is to be likened to a plague of locusts in a field that look, from a distance, like a quivering mass.30 His snorting is either a neigh or whinny that indicates a call to other horses, but to the unfamiliar ear can seem loud and frightening, or it could refer to the kind of snorting that the horse does in the face of danger. The rest of the description relates to the battle.31 Pawing the ground is a well-known action of horses when impatient to get going, indicating its “unrestrained eagerness.”32 Its rejoicing and “laugh[ing] at fear” recalls the previous descriptions of wild animals laughing in vv. 7 and 18. The depiction of the horse speaking “Aha!” is a surprising anthropomorphism within a description that otherwise depicts the independent spirit of even a trained horse. The Hawk Is it by your wisdom that the hawk soars, and spreads its wings toward the south? (39:26)

God issues the command for the patterns of behavior of the hawk in this short description, parallel to that of the vulture in the next verse. The hawk’s high flying and migratory patterns are treated here. There may be an implied contrast between these two birds who fly high and the ostrich which cannot fly. Interestingly the hawk is assigned “understanding,” contrasting with the lack of wisdom or understanding of the ostrich, even though the mention of wisdom is in a question turned against Job for his lack of knowledge.33

30.  So suggested Robert Gordis, The Book of Job: Commentary, New Translation, and Special Notes (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1978). 31.  Clines, Job 38–42, 1129 and 1131, emphasizes that horses are actually more excited, through their sense of smell as well as what they see, by the presence of other horses in a battle context rather than by the battle itself. 32.  Carol A. Newsom, “The Book of Job,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible, ed. Leander E. Keck et al. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1996), 4:317–637. 33.  As Katharine J. Dell and Tova L. Forti, “ ‘When a bird flies through the air’: Enigmatic Paths of Birds in Wisdom Literature,” in Networks of Metaphors in the Hebrew Bible, ed. Danilo Verde and Antje Labahn, BETL 309 (Leuven: Peeters, 2020), 245–61, write of Job 39:26–30, “This text pays great attention to spatial

F

D

God’s View of His Animals in Job 38–39

31

The Vulture Is it at your command that the vulture flies up, raises his nest on high? He dwells on a cliff, (there) spends the night, on the tooth of a crag and a stronghold. From there he spies out food, his eyes look afar, and his chicks gulp blood. Wherever there are corpses, there he is. (39:27–30)

In 39:27, the emphatic placement of “your” in the question in “Is it at your command?” shows that the issue is not what the vulture34 does but who issues the command. It is assumed that someone does this, and the only possibility is God. This is a universe in which all events respond to divine commands, like the acts of creation (in Gen 1). But the challenge in 39:27 is the smaller part of the vulture’s description. Verses 28–30 ask no questions and tell no mysteries, but they do describe a wonder: the incredible eyesight of the vulture, which lives high on a cliff and from there spies out food for its young.35 The food mentioned is bloody corpses.36 The world is not always awesome and beautiful. It is also, in some ways, disgusting and repulsive to the human soul. It is not shaped to human tastes and needs. Robert Alter makes the point well: “[T]he sharp paradoxes [the animal realm] embodies make us see the inadequacy of any merely human moral calculus—not only that

configurations. The strong wings that enable the hawk to migrate to the south, and the high lodging of the vulture express varying degrees of wisdom allotted and distributed by God” (261). 34.  Should ‫( נשׁר‬mentioned 28 times in the Bible) be translated “vulture,” as here, or “eagle” (as NRSV) or even “falcon”? In Israel the vulture is a much more common bird and so “vulture” is a culturally preferable translation. The vulture builds its nest up high in the crannies of cliff (Jer 49:16; Obad 4; Job 39:27–28), whereas the eagle nests in trees. The type of vulture indicated is the griffon vulture (Gyps fulvus) rather than other birds of prey. On ‫ נשׁר‬identified as a vulture, see Tova L. Forti, Animal Imagery in the Book of Proverbs, VTSup 118 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 57–66, 30–31, 125–26. In Job 9:26 the vulture is described as “swooping onto its prey,” concretizing the idea of Job’s increasingly shortened days in anticipation of death. Here, though, the emphasis is on nesting on high and on the bird’s remarkable eyesight that enables it to spot carcasses from afar. 35.  The griffon vulture is known to have keen eyesight. The term ‫“( חפר‬watches”) is literally “digs” as if for hidden treasure. It also has young that mature slowly and are in the nest for the first seven weeks of their lives. 36.  More often than not they feed on animal corpses, although vultures have a reputation for feeding on human corpses too.

32

Human Interaction with the Natural World

of the friends, learned by rote, but even Job’s spoken out of the integrity of suffering. In the animal kingdom, the tender care for one’s young may well mean their gulping the blood of freshly slain creatures.”37 Again, God shapes the habits and habitations of all animals, even those that humans find unpalatable. God finds awe and beauty in all creatures for whom he provides and he is also in control of all their ways. The list of animals in Job 38:39–39:30 is bracketed by two views of the world on a grand scale, first the creation of the far reaches of the universe (38:1–38), then the two mammoth beasts, Behemoth and Leviathan (40:15–41:33). The animals of the present list are viewed up close, and God’s tender care for them as well as (by implication) his ability to control them (though not mentioning his undoubted ability to defeat them). This description then tells Job (and us) as much about God as about the animals themselves. There is a surprising mix of power and loving care, control and yet intimate knowledge in this description. Job is invited to conclude that he too is under God’s care, though Job does not see this working out in his own case. His initial response indicates no desire to answer back—is this submission or simply silence? His second response in 42:2–6 suggests some kind of submission, but contains no admission that God might be right and hold the keys to answers to his suffering.38 In these passages, then, the author of Job takes us on a tour of the wildest places on the earth, far from human habitation, to make the point that God is familiar with all these secrets and indeed that he controls, shapes and delights in the sheer variety of the animal world that he has created and sustains. The rhetorical power of the series of questions asked and the richness of the descriptions given serve to underline God’s knowledge and power in creation and yet his intimate care for all his creatures, whether human beings find them palatable or not.

37.  Robert Alter, “The Voice from the Whirlwind,” Commentary 77 (1984): 33–41 (38). 38.  See Michael V. Fox, “God’s Answer and Job’s Response,” Bib 94 (2013): 1–23.

Chapter 3

H

B

L “S

”

J

*

Mark Sneed

ֹIn ch. 12 of the book of Job, the character, Job, has just made his case that God seems to favor the wicked instead of the pious. In v. 7 he states: However, ask the beasts (‫ )בהמות‬and they will teach you, The birds of the heavens, and they will report to you.1

Verses 7–8 allude to the wisdom of animals. In fact, animals (and plants) are used often in the book of Job as evidence in a particular speaker’s arguments.2 For example, in 38:39–40, God asks questions concerning his ability to provide for the lion, which clashes with Eliphaz, who uses the lion as a symbol for the sinner (4:10), and also Job, who describes God as a lion hunting him (10:16).3 The reference to the “beasts” in v. 7 is ominous because it will appear in the second divine speech (40:15) with a singular verb, referring to a special beast that God Himself uses in his arsenal in countering Job’s accusations against Him. The point appears to be that the animals know what humans do not: that the world does not operate the way human beings think it does, especially in terms of its schema of retributive justice.

*  I am thankful to be asked to contribute to a Festschrift honoring Professor Tova Forti, whose passion for wisdom and biblical animals is well-known. I am proud to call her both a colleague and friend and hope she enjoys her retirement. 1.  Translation of Hebrew is my own. 2.  Chol-Gu Kang, Behemot und Leviathan: Studien zu Komposition und Theologie von Hiob 38, 1–42, 6, WMANT 149 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017), 134–52. 3.  Ibid., 105.

34

Human Interaction with the Natural World

In the first divine speech in ch. 38, God invokes a menagerie of wild, undomesticated animals (the exception is the war horse)—the lion, raven, wild goat, deer, ass, ostrich, and eagle. God’s concern for their welfare and their young is evidence that He has a “plan” (‫ )עצה‬and “knowledge” (‫( )דעת‬38:2) for the cosmos, a purpose that Job has obscured in the dialogue. Perhaps Job is also meant to relate to the description of these wild creatures, on the periphery of human society, because he too was now marginal, having become ostracized from his community in many ways with his disease and loss of status. In the second speech, specifically ch. 40, two final “animals” are invoked which, I will argue, represent the apex of God’s argument with Job. These creatures share with the former animals their wildness, ferocity, and power. Yet they are different: they are monsters! Or are they? These beasts are invoked for a different reason than the former creatures. Instead of God’s wisdom or plan being challenged, here the question of His justice comes more to the foreground. God accuses Job of proclaiming Him guilty but himself just (v. 8). God asks Job facetiously whether he has the power to do this (v. 9). Will Job adorn himself with the symbols of power and honor (v. 10)? God commands Job to deal with the “proud” (v. 11) or “wicked” and “trample them” (v. 12). Job should bury them in the “dust” and bind their faces in Sheol (v. 13). If all this were possible, then God would praise him (v. 14). God’s answer to the challenge to His justice, in particular to his lack of treating human wickedness, is answered, starting with v. 15 and the reference to Behemoth and then later, Leviathan. In the following I will first briefly mention the state of scholarship regarding the identity of these animals. I will then argue why these creatures are not natural animals but monstrous beasts. I will subsequently briefly trace from where the consensus position originates. I will briefly introduce “monster theory.” Then, in the last section of this essay, I will show how these monsters “speak” to Job and constitute the epitome of God’s defense of his ways of dealing with the problem of human wickedness, that is, His justice. State of Scholarship Concerning the Beasts Currently, there is a general consensus that Behemoth and Leviathan in the second divine speech (Job 40–41) are natural animals, the hippopotamus and crocodile, respectively, often viewed as a continuation of the animal menagerie and representing God’s sovereignty, freedom, care

S

How Behemoth and Leviathan “Speak”

35

for his creation, artistry, or wisdom (e.g., David Clines;4 Michael Fox [Leviathan = whale]5). It has even influenced popular culture. In a recent Jewish comic book on the Hebrew Alphabet, “Behemoth” is one of the beth words and is represented by a picture of the hippopotamus. Also, for tav, a ‫( תנין‬the larger category of sea monsters to which Leviathan belongs) is portrayed as a crocodile.6 A strong minority views them as mythological beasts (e.g., John Day,7 Jon Levenson,8 Norman Habel,9 and Timothy Beal10) that represent chaos and disorder that God constrains, yet allows, to exist. Timothy Beal is an outstanding exemplar of this approach and is unique in applying monster theory to the mythological approach. There is also an attempt to straddle these extremes, a middle ground, so to speak, common among German-speaking scholars, to view the hippopotamus and crocodile as symbols of chaos and disorder that are defeated by Horus (or Seth) (e.g., Jürgen Ebach11 and Chol-Gu Kang12). Or, similarly, a broader ancient Near Eastern perspective that includes Canaan and Mesopotamia, especially for Leviathan, attaches a similar symbolism to the hippopotamus and crocodile as agents of chaos (e.g., Carol Newsom,13

4.  David J. A. Clines (Job 38–42, WBC 18B [Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2011], 1185) notes, “The descriptions are of course literary and not necessarily realistic, perhaps not entirely accurate.” 5.  Michael V. Fox, “Behemoth and Leviathan,” Bib 93 (2012): 261 n. 2, 264. 6.  Chaya Burstein, Hebrew Alphabet Coloring Book (New York: Dover, 1986), 6, 26. 7.  John Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea: Echoes of a Canaanite Myth in the Old Testament, University of Cambridge Oriental Publications 35 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 65–83. 8.  Jon D. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence, paperback ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988), 45, 48. 9.  Norman C. Habel, The Book of Job: A Commentary, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985), 566, 568. 10.  Timothy K. Beal, Religion and Its Monsters (London: Routledge, 2002), 47–55. 11.  Jürgen Ebach, Leviathan und Behemoth: Eine biblische Erinnerung wider die Kolonisierung der Lebenswelt durch das Prinzip der Zweckrationalität, Philosophische Positionen 2 (Paderborn: Schöningh, 1984), 24–25. 12.  Kang, Behemot und Leviathan, 166–67. 13.  Carol A. Newsom, “The Book of Job: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections,” NIB 4:618, 621–22.

36

Human Interaction with the Natural World

Robert Alter,14 Brian Doak,15 Katharine Dell,16 Samuel Balentine,17 and Othmar Keel18). These latter seem to want to acknowledge the consensus but intuitively sense that these creatures have mythological resonances. Why Leviathan and Behemoth are Not the Crocodile and Hippopotamus First of all, let us look at the comparative evidence from the Psalms and ancient Near East, which is so strong that it should influence arguments about Job. I present two texts below, one in table form, to show the close parallel structure. The second text demonstrates that the dragon in the first text is Lotan, the Canaanite equivalent to Leviathan. Anat Defeats Yamm

Surely I struck down Yamm, the Beloved of El, Surely I finished off River, the Great God, Surely I bound Tunnanu and destroyed (?) him. I struck down the Twisty Serpent, The Powerful One with Seven Heads. (CTU 1.3.III.38–42)19

YHWH Defeats Leviathan YHWH is my king, from of old, He who makes salvation in the midst of the land. You divided the sea (‫ יַם‬or Yam) with your strength,

You shattered the heads of the sea monsters (‫ ַתּנִּ ינִ ים‬or tannanim) upon the waters. You crushed the heads of Leviathan, You gave it as food to the desert creatures. (Ps 74:13–14)

14.  Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry, rev. ed. (New York: Basic, 2011), 132–33. 15.  Brian R. Doak, Consider Leviathan: Narrative of Nature and the Self in Job (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014), 280. 16.  Katharine J. Dell, Job: An Introduction and Study Guide: Where Shall Wisdom Be Found?, T&T Clark Study Guides to the Old Testament (London: T&T Clark, 2017), 82–83. 17.  Samuel E. Balentine, Job, Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary (Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2006), 683. 18.  Othmar Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms, trans. Timothy J. Hallett (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 50. 19.  Mark S. Smith and Wayne T. Pitard, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle, vol. 2, VTSup 114 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 204–5.

S

How Behemoth and Leviathan “Speak”

37

Baal likewise claims to have defeated the etymological equivalent of Leviathan, Lotan: When you smite Lôtan, the fleeing serpent, Finish off the twisting serpent, The close-coiling one with seven heads, The heavens wither and go slack Like the folds (?) of your tunic. (COS 1:265, lines 1.1–5)

Both Baal and his consort, Anat, evidently both claim to have defeated this sea dragon, which represents the concrete symbolization of Yam, the Sea. Obviously, the notion of Lotan/Leviathan as a multi-headed dragon means Leviathan cannot be a crocodile. There have been two, seven-headed dragons, both from the third millennium BCE, depicted iconographically, one on a plaque and the other on a cylinder seal (see Fig. 1, below, p. 47). I will limit myself to a description of the plaque. It is an unprovenanced (possibly Akkadian) shell plaque, dating to 2300 BCE.20 A seven-headed fiery dragon is charmed by an exorcist, who has rendered one head harmless.21 Or is it a deity that uses a throwing stick?22 The long-necked heads are serpentine but the body is lion-like.23 Or are the heads more like panthers?24 Keel notes concerning the multi-headed appearance: “The monster’s many heads may be traced to the impression produced by the extreme agility of the snake’s or panther’s head, which seemingly multiplies itself, or to the impression created by the ever-rolling, ever-swelling breakers.”25 Second, turning now to the strong literary evidence from the second divine speech itself, neither beast (Behemoth or Leviathan) can be hunted and caught (40:24–41:29). The questions God asks of Job assume the motif of a hunt (can Job capture Behemoth or Leviathan?), and the answers assume the inability of humans to catch these creatures. There are numerous ancient Egyptian depictions of both crocodile and hippopotamus hunts. So this indicates that these creatures are neither animal. Third, the etymology of “Behemoth” indicates a monster. It is a plural of 20.  See Keel, Symbolism of the Biblical World, 52–53, 390, ill. 51. 21.  Marjo Korpel and Johannes de Moor, “The Leviathan in the Ancient Near East,” in Playing with Leviathan: Interpretation and Reception of Monsters from the Biblical World, ed. Van Bekkum et al., TBN (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 4. 22.  Keel, Symbolism of the Biblical World, 52. 23.  Korpel and de Moor, “Leviathan,” 4. 24.  Keel, Symbolism of the Biblical World, 52. 25.  Ibid.

38

Human Interaction with the Natural World

intensity used with a singular verb, indicating an extremely large quadruped.26 Fourth, the “tail” of Behemoth that stiffens or bends like a cedar (40:17) will not fit the hippopotamus, which has a curly, stubby tail, like a pig. This is the Achilles heel (or tail) of the consensus position regarding the hippopotamus. The tail of a buffalo or bull fits the description much better. Fifth, Leviathan breathes fire (41:11–13). Of course, many scholars simply attribute this to poetic license, but these same scholars use other descriptions of the animal’s body, which they do not take figuratively, to argue that it is a crocodile. Fifth, hippopotami do not cool down under the shade of lotus trees (40:21), though water buffalo do.27 They cool down in water. Finally, for Behemoth there is some comparative evidence, though weaker, that is a continuation of the previous Canaanite text: I struck down Des[ire], Beloved of El, I destroyed Rebel, Calf of El. I struck down Fire, Dog of El, I annihilated Flame, Daughter of El, That I might fight for silver, inherit gold. (CTU 1.3.III.43–47)28

Based on this, Marvin Pope and John Day argue that Behemoth is a bovine giant. Marvin Pope argues that Lotan had a partner, “the furious bullock of El” or “El’s calf Atik.”29 Baal was felled by bovine creatures in a marshy area.30 Leviathan resonates with the Canaanite Lotan and is a dragon.31 He also points to the “bull of Heaven” in the Gilgamesh Epic as a parallel.32 John Day also sees Behemoth’s parallel in El’s calf Atik/Arshu, paired with the seven-headed Lotan, but does not see a Mesopotamian parallel, due to his main thesis that the Chaoskampf motif in the Hebrew Bible is strictly Canaanite in origin, not Mesopotamian.33

26.  See Bernie F. Batto, “Behemoth,” in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, ed. Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst, 2nd rev. ed. (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 165; cf. G. J. Botterweck, “‫בהמה‬,” TWAT 1:533. 27.  Bernard Couroyer, “Qui est Béhémoth: Job 40:15–24?,” RB 82 (1975): 434. 28.  Smith and Pitard, Ugaritic Baal Cycle, 204–5. 29.  Marvin H. Pope, Job: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AB 15 (1965; repr. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 321–22. 30.  Ibid., 322. 31.  Ibid., 329–30. 32.  Ibid., 321. 33.  Day, Dragon and the Sea, 71–72, 80.

S

How Behemoth and Leviathan “Speak”

39

Tracing a Biblical Consensus The reception history of these beasts also supports the notion that they were mythological monsters. These beasts were viewed by both Jews and Christians as mythological creatures or monsters. In the earliest Jewish reception history, during the Second Temple material (4 Ezra 6:49–52; 2 Apoc. Bar. 29:4; 1 En. 60:7–10, 24—all first century CE) the beasts were viewed as huge monsters (a dragon that becomes more fish-like over time [Leviathan] and a huge water buffalo [Behemoth]) whose bodies (either God would slay them or they slew themselves in combat) would be reserved for the redeemed by God as food at the end of time.34 This interpretation continued into the Rabbinic period (e.g. b. B. Bat. 74b–75a; sixth–seventh centuries CE). Christian interpretation, beginning with Revelation 12–13 and the red dragon and beast from the sea (Leviathan) and land (Behemoth), continues this mythological perspective. The beasts are portrayed more negatively, however, though the eschatological usage is still in line with Jewish tradition. The first hint that the beasts were considered as natural animals only goes back to the Jewish peshat scholar, Sa‘adia Gaon (tenth century CE), who translates “Behemoth” as “one of the beasts,” created by God to humble Job.35 Leviathan is also a natural animal, but neither beast is identified with any particular creature. That the elephant was Behemoth and Leviathan was a whale was the common view among Christians of the Late Medieval Age. The Jews added to the pair a third creature, Ziz, a giant bird or griffin, also intended to be eaten at the eschaton.36 The first to view the beasts as the hippopotamus and crocodile, as a pair, goes back no further than the seventeenth-century Huguenot, Samuel Bochart.37 He was a biblical antiquarian and philologist who wrote a biblical animal encyclopedia, Hierozoicon (1712). Ever since, the whale38 34.  This theme is also found in the Aramaic hymn for the holiday of Shavuot (Pentecost) known by its opening word Akdamut. 35.  Sa’adia ben Joseph, The Book of Theodicy: Translation and Commentary on the Book of Job, translation and commentary by L. E. Goodman, YJS 25 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988), 403–4. 36.  See Joseph Gutmann, “Leviathan, Behemoth, and Ziz: Jewish Messianic Symbols in Art,” HUCA 39 (1968): 219–30. 37.  Samuel Bochart, Hierozoicon, vol. 2 of Samuelis Bocharti Opera Omnia (N.p.: 1712), 753–54, 769–70; Beza (sixteenth century) and Deodatius had identified Leviathan as a crocodile before Bochart (Couroyer, “Qui est Béhémoth?,” 427, cites Bochart, Hierozoicon [1663], 767). 38.  Fox, “Behemoth and Leviathan,” 261 n. 2, 264.

40

Human Interaction with the Natural World

and elephant have been increasingly excluded as candidates for the beasts. Even though Bochart had pious intentions, his demythologizing of these beasts ultimately was ensconced in a process that would lead to the modern historical-critical method that has found a firm foothold within the modern secular world.39 Monsters in the Bible Since the evidence points to the beasts as mythological chaos monsters, I need to say a few words about monster theory, which would appear to be a good lens through which to get a new perspective on old debates about these strange creatures. Monster theory is a mixture of philosophy, anthropology, psychoanalysis, literary theory, and cultural studies.40 Monsters, as the derivation of the Latin name implies, are primarily symbols. As Stephen Asma, philosopher, points out, “To be a monster is to be an omen.”41 This is why in the pre-modern world a baby or animal born with gross physical defects, i.e., a monster, was considered an ominous portent. Bettina Bildhaur and Robert Mills, both Medievalists who employ monster theory, write, Monsters…are not meaningless but meaning-laden. The monstrous is constitutive, producing the contours of both bodies that matter (humans, Christians, Saints, historical figures, gendered subjects and Christ) and, ostensibly, bodies that do not (animals, non-Christians, demons, fantastical creatures and portentous freaks). Monstrosity also demarcates segments 39.  See Mark Sneed, Taming the Beast: A Reception History of Behemoth and Leviathan, SBR 12 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2022). In it I trace a gradual demythologization of the beasts that actually starts in the Hebrew Bible, where the beasts become ciphers for Israel’s enemies. The beasts are, thus, gradually “tamed,” as I call it. I emphasize how Bochart’s perspective reflects Enlightenment thinking, orientalism, and antiquarianism and that the consensus position, a product of the historical critical method, has accepted his conclusions without being aware of his historical context and presuppositions. They too, thus, are part of this demythologization process, while popular culture rightly perpetuates the beasts as mythological (huge monsters), like the ancients. 40.  Brandon Grafius (“Text and Terror: Monster Theory and the Hebrew Bible,” CBR 16 [2017]: 37) describes it as straddling the worlds of anthropology and psychoanalysis. 41.  Stephen T. Asma, On Monsters: An Unnatural History of Our Worst Fears (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 13; cf. Jeffrey Jerome Cohen, “Monster Culture (Seven Theses),” in Monster Theory: Reading Culture, ed. Jeffrey Cohen (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996), 4.

S

How Behemoth and Leviathan “Speak”

41

of space (for instance, by distinguishing areas of the landscape in which demonic creatures do and do not appear) and division of time (such as the distinction between night and day).42

Monsters can be hybrid, composite, creatures, as well as unusually large or small: “A monster can be formed from too much or too little matter: They might be too big or too small, possess too many or too few body parts, have parts relocated, or combine characteristics of more than one species.”43 Their nature as unnatural relates to their supernatural character, which provides them with powers and capacities that natural animals do not possess.44 The monster’s supernatural nature makes them closely related to deities, if not a type of deity.45 Yet they exist in the world among other natural creatures and humans. This presents a paradox about monsters that Timothy Beal, a biblical scholar, points out: “Monsters are in the world but not of the world. They are paradoxical personifications of othernesss within sameness.”46 This gives them incredible symbolic power, as well as flexibility. This contradictory character of monsters reveals their significance for culture: “They are figures of chaos and disorientation within order and orientation, revealing deep insecurities in one’s faith in oneself, one’s society and one’s world.”47 Similarly, Gilmore notes, “[M]onsters expose the radical permeability and artificiality of all our classificatory boundaries, highlighting the arbitrariness and fragility of culture.”48 This inside but outside nature is related to what Julia Kristeva calls the abject, which is neither subject nor object but what a culture jettisons in order to construct its own symbolic and classification system.49 Yet it is foundational for a culture’s very identity and existence. Or, in other words,

42.  Bettina Bildhaur and Robert Mills, “Introduction: Conceptualizing the Monstrous,” in Monstrous Middle Ages, ed. B. Bildhaur and R. Mills (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2003), 2. 43.  Ibid., 14; cf. David D. Gilmore, Monsters: Evil Beings, Mythical Beasts, and All Manner of Imaginary Terrors (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2003), 7. 44.  Cf. Beal, Religion and Its Monsters, 7. 45.  Gilmore, Monsters, 10. 46.  Beal, Religion and Its Monsters, 4 (original emphasis). 47.  Ibid., 5; cf. Grafius, “Text and Terror,” 35. 48.  Gilmore, Monsters, 19; cf. Cohen, “Monster Culture,” 6–7; cf. Julia Kristeva, Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection, trans. Leon S. Rondiez (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982), 4. 49.  Kristeva, Powers of Horror, 65.

42

Human Interaction with the Natural World

“[T]he monster serves as a way for a social group to construct identity, by constructing a picture that is the opposite of how they see themselves.”50 Thus, in socio-psychological terms, the monster represents the quintessential Other.51 They also often function as legitimizing mechanisms, especially in theodicy systems.52 “The voice of the monster is the audacious voice of theodicy.”53 Now let us see how Behemoth and Leviathan, as monsters, function to “speak” to Job. How the Beasts “Speak” to Job In the following, one will see that God attempts to respond to Job’s accusations of God’s injustice in allowing the wicked to prosper via four means: forensically, theologically, relationally, and experientially. First, the beasts are used by God as a direct response to Job’s complaints, a forensic strategy. God’s parading of Leviathan before Job resonates with Job 3:8, where Job attempts to curse the day of his birth and the night of his conception so that he would no longer have to endure the great suffering he was currently experiencing. He refers to the magicians who can conjure up Leviathan for just such purposes. So, literally, God has conjured up Leviathan (and Behemoth) to give Job what he wants. This, in turn, correlates with 7:12, where Job accuses God of constraining (“guarding”) him like the Sea (‫ )ים‬or sea monster (‫)תנין‬, the larger category to which Leviathan belongs. Both of these texts represent a direct clash with Job’s argumentation, rhetorically. Second, Leviathan (and Behemoth) are key in responding more specifically to Job’s accusations of divine injustice because these beasts function here as theodicy agents, a theological strategy. As monsters, we would expect this. Here, the specific theodicy strategy is that of dissolving the problem of evil.54 The beasts do this by acknowledging that YHWH is responsible for evil because he created these beasts. A similar strategy is found in Psalm 104, where Leviathan is created by YHWH to be his pet to play with. If one admits that YHWH is responsible for evil, then the problem of theodicy is technically dissolved. The tension is mitigated. This is theodicy broadly conceived. This is no

50.  Grafius, “Text and Terror,” 35. 51.  Cf. Cohen, “Monster Culture,” 7; Asma, On Monsters, 231–54. 52.  Cf. Gilmore, Monsters, 90, who states: “The monster likewise gives moral meaning to man’s struggles with nature and with his own appetites.” 53.  Beal, Religion and Its Monsters, 3. 54.  See Ronald Green, “Theodicy,” in The Encyclopedia of Religion 14:434–35.

S

How Behemoth and Leviathan “Speak”

43

different than the “divine double standard” in Ludlul bel nemeqi, when the sufferer, who has come to doubt the moral causal connection, says, “Who is to say that what we think is a blessing is not to the god an abomination?” So, when YHWH parades the beasts, his creatures, before Job, He is admitting His responsibility for Job’s pain, but simultaneously is saying that His sense of “justice” cannot be understood rationally by Job or humankind in general. God also restrains evil when it gets out of hand, which is inferred from the reference to “leashing” Leviathan (41:5). Though Job cannot certainly “leash” Leviathan, God, of course, could and, by implication, does—the text mirrors what God can do, though Job cannot. This correlates with YHWH having bound the Sea (‫)ים‬, setting its limits, in the first divine speech (38:8–11). The implication is that YHWH uses “evil” for his own purposes, as part of his divine economy, which includes restraining it when it exceeds those purposes. Third, the two beasts provide a means of connecting God with Job incarnationally (relationally). As monsters they represent the alienation and monstrous form that Job has assumed after the effects of the contest between God and the satan, both in terms of his physical body (his disease) but also in relation to his losing status in society.55 Because of the terrible losses Job experiences and his skin disease, he has become an outcast (e.g., 30:9–11). But the creatures, as monsters, also partake of the divine, which means they can represent God as well. As Newsom states, “Indeed, as has often been pointed out, the physical description of Leviathan is uncannily evocative of the theophanic descriptions of God.”56 In other words, the pair of beasts represent God incarnationally, in bodily form, whom Job can encounter in a more sympathetic way than God’s appearance in the whirlwind alone would enable. This represents a rhetorical appeal that enables Job’s connection with God, something God needed the monsters for because He could not do it alone. The beasts meet Job relationally and allow him to re-establish his bond with God. 55.  On the notion of disability and disfigurement (Job’s and the beasts’) and the sublime in the divine speeches, see Alec Basson, “Just Skin and Bones: The Longing for Wholeness of the Body in the Book of Job,” VT 58 (2008): 287–99; Rebecca Raphael, “Things Too Wonderful: A Disabled Reading of Job,” PRSt 31 (2004): 399–424. 56.  Carol Newsom, The Book of Job: A Contest of Moral Imagination (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 251; interestingly, Sarah C. Jobe (“The Monstrosity of God Made Flesh: Karl Barth on God as Leviathan,” Journal of Reformed Theology 13 [2019]: 238–56) points to Karl Barth describing Jesus as God inhabiting Leviathan, i.e., the incarnation.

44

Human Interaction with the Natural World

The merging of the identities of God and Leviathan in fact happens at a couple of places in the speech. It is unclear in 41:2b–3 whether it is about God or Leviathan, but the sense is clear: praise of God’s superiority and might. God, it appears, assumes the role of Leviathan. However, according to Samuel Balentine, the beasts can be seen as being in an analogous relationship to God as Job in a certain respect. While noting that most scholars view the function of the beasts as demonstrating that only God alone can control the beasts (683), Balentine (688) suggests, “God will not subdue (silence) creatures that speak heroically about their God-given role in creation.”57 I think that one does not have to choose between these two options. Leviathan and Behemoth represent the perfect bridge between God and Job, which is how they go beyond the wild and fierce animals that precede them in God’s speech. Here one sees their rhetorical effect of connecting Job to God. As monsters, they partake of the divine and represent God’s Otherness. But as the most alienated beings, the quintessential representatives of the Other, monsters can connect with Job in ways that the natural animals that preceded could not. Fourth, the beasts elicit the sublime in the readers, as well as in Job as a character in the book. This move represents a technically non-rational, emotional type of “theodicy” that involves the notion of the sublime. In other words, Job’s hearing God’s encomium on the beasts reflects an experiential appeal. This fits with the role of the sublime in both philosophy (e.g., Kant and Edmund Burke) and rhetoric (e.g., Longinus). Significantly, a few biblical scholars use the notion of the sublime and the related concept of the uncanny to illuminate the divine speeches, especially the second one.58 For example, Newsom refers to the tragic knowledge that God reveals to Job in the divine speeches as demonstration of the limits of the conversation within the dialog—it overwhelms the categories at hand.59 And yet there is elation: the sublime; it displaces us from self-possession. Concerning the specificity of her notion of the sublime, she draws on Longinus, Kant, and the notion of tragedy to describe Job’s experience of elation in his encounter with God.60 Newsom draws on Longinus for two stages of the sublime, where the hearer of a speech is overwhelmed with wonder at first, then afterwards feels pride, 57.  Balentine, Job, 683, 688. 58.  See the work of two of Newsom’s students: Timothy Beal, Religion and Its Monsters, 47–55; and Davis Hankins, The Book of Job and the Immanent Genesis of Transcendence, Diaeresis (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 2015), 193–204. 59.  Newsom, Moral Imagination, 253–54. 60.  Ibid., 252–56.

S

How Behemoth and Leviathan “Speak”

45

as if she had spoken the words herself. She also draws on Kant and argues that the inanimate creation at the beginning of the divine speeches represents mathematical sublimity (sublimity of space), whereas the animals represent dynamic (sublimity of relations). Tragedy explains the fact that Job really never receives a resolution to his complaints but attains a new perspective on the world. He now knows his place within it, his limitations, but also “the preciousness of being,” of existence as a gift. The feeling of the sublime is elicited by experiences that involve a bit of fear but not too much. For example, the first time one views the Grand Canyon one has both a feeling of fear that turns to awe and even euphoria. Similarly, viewing the ocean for the first time or witnessing a storm or encountering a roaring lion in a cage can elicit the sublime. The key is that one must become fearful but not too full of trepidation or else an experience of the sublime will not occur. Before such phenomena, the mind is unable rationally to take in the grandeur and wonder of the experience at first. But eventually the mind realizes that though it cannot fully fathom such a wonder, a feeling of elation occurs that comforts the experiencer and allows her to feel she “could be a match for nature’s seeming omnipotence.”61 Monsters are thought to be a phenomenon that can elicit the sublime, and this is why movie goers today enjoy horror movies, where they can experience fright while being in the comfortable safety of the movie theater. So, one can argue that God attempts to elicit the sublime in Job during the divine speeches, with the summoning of strange and wild images of natural animals, but especially in the second speech, where monsters are described in great detail. So this may be God’s way of finally convincing Job that he is wrong about God’s lack of justice. David Bernat argues that the description of the beasts is a type of encomium or praise of the beasts, particularly their body parts, more specifically, a waṣf (an Arabic genre that resonates with the descriptions of the body parts of the beloved and loved in the Song of Songs).62 Yet they are terrifying and frightening, which is why Bernat refers to their effect on the reader as “shock and awe.” So, YHWH apparently invokes images of creatures (especially Leviathan, being a predator) that should elicit fear in the hearts of most Israelites, for whom Leviathan was a primary monstrous symbol. For Job, and then, the reader, as she reads or hears the majestic descriptions of Behemoth’s huge and powerful body and 61.  Immanuel Kant, Critique of Judgment: Including the First Introduction, trans. Werner S. Pluhar (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1987), 120. 62.  David Bernat, “Biblical Waṣfs Beyond Song of Songs,” JSOT 28 (2004): 327–49.

46

Human Interaction with the Natural World

Leviathan’s large mouth and ravaging teeth and impenetrable armor, the elicitation of the sublime is a natural affect. This would catapult a person to the metaphysical realm, from a Kantian perspective. In other words, these monsters point Job (and the reader) to God’s “just” world. They take the reader out of herself, giving her a different perspective, which is exactly what happens to Job in the end (42:6). So, a sublime theodicy is one that should not be overlooked here. It is not rational. Rather, it touches a person primarily emotively, though a faint rational element be still present. Of course, both the rational and non-rational attempts to justify God’s integrity as a just deity, i.e., theodicy strategies, would serve to legitimate the contemporary status quo, even if indirectly, at least for the elite scribes who could read the book. A book that attempts to justify the Hebrew God’s ways in the face of the general evil that postexilic Jews faced during the Persian period (the consensus for its date)63 would make life more tolerable for such elites and reduce the cognitive dissonance they faced. In spite of Yehud being a vassal nation to the mighty Persians, somehow the Hebrew God could still be believed to be in control. And, through the theodicy strategies, his seeming injustice could be mitigated. However, the fact that the Jewish deity seems to have created Leviathan himself and forms part of the divine economy would expose Him to the accusation of being responsible for evil. So, while God’s creation and control of the mighty Behemoth and Leviathan would tend to emphasize God’s power and sovereignty, His creation of such a creature would simultaneously undermine His justice, as understood in human terms. So, on the one hand, God’s justice gets redefined, and so He is vindicated. On the other hand, this simultaneously seems to question that very “justice.” But such are the liabilities of theodicies. However liable, they still provide comfort for people, including elites. Conclusion The consensus of biblical scholarship is that Behemoth is a hippopotamus and Leviathan a crocodile. However, that consensus goes back no further than the seventeenth century and to a French Huguenot, who had apologetic interests, wanting to make the Bible appear more rational. The evidence clearly points to these beasts being huge, mythological monsters originally. Leviathan was a gigantic sea dragon, while Behemoth was an enormous water buffalo. This is supported by both the early Jewish and Christian actualizations of this tradition. But being monsters gives the 63.  E.g., Dell, Job, 5.

S

How Behemoth and Leviathan “Speak”

47

beasts advantages that natural animals do not have, which why God ends his divine speeches with them. Thus, Leviathan and Behemoth “speak” to Job even more so than they could. They do so in four ways. First, they do so forensically in clashing directly with Job’s desire to conjure up Leviathan (3:8) and his accusation that God confines him like the Sea or sea monster (7:12). Second, they do so theologically. They represent a symbolic attempt to dissolve the problem of evil for the Jews of the Persian period—ingenious, if not totally effective. As representations of chaos, disorder, and even sin, God’s creation and implied control of them means he finds a place for them within his divine economy. Third, relationally, the alien, monstrous character of the beasts and their simultaneous character as divine would have enabled them to appeal to Job in a more satisfying way than God alone in the whirlwind. Job’s monstrous body and his loss of status meant he could relate to the frightening description of their enormous body parts but also see God in that enormity and disfigurement. This would serve to establish a bond between God and Job. Fourth, the description of the body parts of the beasts would have elicited a sense of the sublime in Job and the book’s readers. It could potentially transport them to the metaphysical realm where God’s “injustice” would largely disappear and all would seem right with the world, much as one might feel looking up at the countless stars on a clear, dark night. Forensically, theologically, incarnationally (relationally), and experientially (even metaphysically), the second divine speech can rightly be characterized as the climax of the book of Job, representing the epitome of its persuasive techniques.

Figure 3.1. A deity defeats a multi-headed dragon. Illustration by Lauren R. Sneed from Mark Sneed, Taming the Beast: A Reception History of Behemoth and Leviathan, SBR 12 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2022). Courtesy of de Gruyter.

Chapter 4

T

O H

L

, L F P

,

L A

: T

30

Knut M. Heim

Introduction Much in the chapter ascribed to Agur in the book of Proverbs seems obscure. Longman, for example, reflects a broad consensus when he notes that “[t]he ‘Words of Agur’ passage is easily the most difficult section of the book of Proverbs to translate and understand.”1 In this essay I want to have some fun and undertake a thought experiment: what if Agur was a court jester, and his words are the written record of one of his humorous routines?—I will explore whether a performance-based and humororiented interpretation can shed new light on this fascinating portion of the book of Proverbs.2 1.  Fox calls vv. 1–9 a “difficult poem” which consequently “has received a multitude of varying and conflicting interpretations” (Michael V. Fox, Proverbs 10–31: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 18B [New York: Doubleday, 2009], 851). Yoder claims that the chapter, and vv. 1–9 in particular, “is arguably the most difficult of the book” because it “presents many exegetical dilemmas” and thus “inspires many interpretations” (Christine Roy Yoder, Proverbs, AOTC (Nashville: Abingdon, 2009], 278). Clifford notes that vv. 1–10 “are the most difficult section in Proverbs” and claims that v. 1 is “textually damaged beyond sure recovery” (Richard J. Clifford, Proverbs: A Commentary, OTL [Norwich: SCM; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999], 256). 2.  There is a relatively new interpretative discipline within biblical studies called “performance criticism” which looks at areas of orality, rhetoric, memory, delivery, translation and dramatic intent. This has originated in studies from within English literature, such as R. Baumann, Verbal Art as Performance (Rowley: Newbury House, 1978), and Story, Performance and Event: Contextual Studies of Oral Narrative

H

Of Leeches, Lizards, and Lions

49

I take all of the chapter as a spoken-word sequence which Agur performed publicly before an elite audience. Consequently, I am not analyzing the material as simply a written text, but as the written record of a public recital. I am airing the fresh idea that Proverbs 30 was originally a live performance with a live audience who experienced Agur’s words not as scribbles on a page, but as sounds in the air. The main focus of my analysis are features which are funny, especially when performed before a live audience. Here I draw especially on classical theories of humor: the Superiority Theory, the Relief Theory and the Incongruity Theory.3

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986). It was taken up in biblical studies by such seminal works as that by Susan Niditch, Oral World and Written Word (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996), and Ron F. Person, “The Ancient Israelite Scribe as Performer,” JBL 117 (1998): 601–9. For an overview, see Terry Giles and William Doan, Performance Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2008). Although studies within the wisdom literature have tended to focus on Job as a possible play with a dramatic function, there is no reason why, in this context, Prov 30 is not a plausible contender for a performative function. There is also a range of studies on biblical humor, including within the wisdom literature, again mainly focusing on the book of Job; see, e.g., William Whedbee, “The Comedy of Job,” Semeia 7 (1977): 1–39, and Abigail Pelham’s response in “Job as Comedy Revisited,” JSOT 35 (2010): 89–112. See also Katherine E. Southwood’s recent book, Job’s Body and the Dramatized Comedy of Moralizing (New York: Routledge, 2021). However, the book of Ecclesiastes has also been looked at from this angle, albeit in the context of Hellenistic drama; see, e.g., John Jarick, “Ecclesiastes Among the Tragedians,” in Goochem in Mochum/Wisdom in Amsterdam, ed. George J. Brooke and Pierre van Hecke, OTS 68 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 95–107, and “Ecclesiastes Among the Comedians,” in Reading Ecclesiastes Intertextually, ed. Katharine Dell and Will Kynes (London: Bloomsbury/T&T Clark, 2014), 176–88. So, the time is certainly ripe for a similar approach to the book of Proverbs. 3.  Cristina Larking-Galiñanes. “An Overview of Humor Theory,” in The Routledge Handbook of Language and Humor, ed. Salvatore Attardo (Abingdon: Routledge, 2017), 4–16. Larking-Galiñanes provides a helpful historical survey of the classical theories of humor. Superiority Theory is already discussed in the works of Plato and Aristotle, as well as other classical authors like Demetrius (third century BCE), Cicero (first century BCE) and Quintilian (first century CE). Relief Theory or Release Theory, as it is sometimes called, draws a connection between humor and health which is already discussed in classical writers like Aristotle, Cicero and Pliny the Younger (first century CE) and taken up by Christian writers like Clement of Alexandria (third century CE) and Thomas Aquinas (thirteenth century CE). Reflection on Incongruity Theory also appears as early as some of the familiar classical authors, such as Aristotle, Demetrius, Cicero and Quintilian.

50

Human Interaction with the Natural World

Humor in Proverbs 30 Proverbs 30 falls into two main parts. The first part in vv. 1–9 is an introduction to vv. 10–33.4 Agur the Fool in Proverbs 30:1–9 My thought experiment is this. The opening words were not meant to be an introduction to a written text, at least not originally. Rather, they were a spoken announcement which introduced a public performance, the words of Agur, which he then recited before a live audience. I will argue that this announcement and Agur’s opening words marked his routine as a recital with prophetic and humorous quality. It introduces Agur as a humorously prophetic performer comparable to court jesters. Jesters are professional buffoons who present truth to power.5 Their critique flows not in the direct language and style of the prophets, but in the playful banter and light-hearted style of wit. In her wide-ranging study, Beatrice Otto contends that the jester “is very much a universal character, more or less interchangeable regardless of the time or culture in which he happens

4.  There is no consensus on the main divisions in the chapter. Clifford and Meinhold follow the Septuagint, which divides the chapter into vv. 1–14 (located before Prov 24:23–34) and vv. 15–33 (located after Prov 24:23–34). See Arndt Meinhold, Die Sprüche, Zürcher Bibelkommentare, 2 vols (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 1991), 495. Clifford also recognizes smaller sections in vv. 1–10, 11–14 and 15–33 (Clifford, Proverbs: A Commentary, 256–65). I follow a combination of the structural analyses of Sauer, Fox and Waltke: Sauer sees all of Prov 30:1–33 as a single collection (Georg Sauer, Die Sprüche Agurs, BWANT 4 [Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1963], 92). Fox changes his mind in the second part of his two-volume commentary and delineates vv. 1–9 from vv. 10–33 on the basis that the former are a coherent unit while the latter are a miscellany of epigrams and aphorisms (Fox, Proverbs 10–31, 850–51, 862). On the basis of form-critical and rhetorical-critical considerations, Waltke goes one step further and identifies vv. 1–9 as the introduction (an autobiography of Agur) to vv. 10–33 (a sequence of numerical sayings addressed to Ithiel, cf. v. 1). See Bruce K. Waltke, The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 15–31, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 463–64. 5.  The book of Proverbs is spiked with humorous proverbs and statements with social impact. For example, Prov 11:22 lampoons men who choose their marriage partners only on the basis of their good looks as “pigs” (see Knut M. Heim, “A Closer Look at the Pig in Proverbs xi 22,” VT 58 [2008]: 13–27). An example that might have come straight from the mouth of a court jester is the hilarious instruction on table manners in the presence of rulers in Prov 23:1–8. Conversely, the prophetic books are full of humor, with the book of Jonah being the most prominent specimen.

H

Of Leeches, Lizards, and Lions

51

to cavort—the same techniques, the same functions, the same license.”6 In what follows I hope to demonstrate that the jester’s shoe fits Agur remarkably well.7 In v. 1a Agur is introduced, and in vv. 1b–3 he begins his presentation by addressing his audience with words spiked with puns and double entendre, followed by four comments on his intellectual capacity. Agur is portrayed as divinely inspired, despite his protestations of ignorance that follow. The words in v. 1a indicate that the material they introduce is performed publicly by one Agur, son of Jakeh, and that the words (‫ ִ)דּ ְב ֵרי‬of his performance are considered an “oracle,” a genre of public speech most commonly associated with biblical prophets. The specific form of the genre designation, ‫“( ַה ַמּ ָשּׂא‬the oracle,” with a definite article), regularly

6.  Beatrice K. Otto, Fools Are Everywhere: The Court Jester Around the World (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007), XVI. 7.  Otto (ibid.) notes that court jesters were known in the ancient Near East as early as the third millennium BCE, citing a correspondence between Pharaoh Neferkere (Pepi II, Sixth Dynasty, approx. 2323–2150 BCE) and one of his officials, who had written to inform him that he had discovered a dancing dwarf. Neferkere replied: “thou shalt bring this dwarf with thee…to rejoice and gladden the heart of the king…” (cited from ibid., 24, who in turn quotes from Véronique Dasen, Dwarfs in Ancient Egypt and Greece [Oxford: Clarendon, 1993], 25–29, 133). This early reference in Egypt suggests that court jesters may well have been widespread in the milieu of the book of Proverbs from an early time. The lack of scholarly engagement with the topic is not so much an indication that court jesters were rare in the ancient Near East. Rather, it reflects a regrettable neglect of the topic in scholarly work to date, the work of Dasen cited above notwithstanding. There is no obvious reference to a court jester in the Bible. However, in a discussion of the role and functions of courtiers at the Israelite royal court, Whybray draws attention to the “quick-wittedness” that was a necessary quality for a courtier (with reference to the prophet Nathan in 2 Sam 12). Hushai, intriguingly, is called “David’s friend” in 2 Sam 15:37 and 16:16. Thus he may have carried the official title “king’s friend” (‫)ר ֶ ֥עה ַה ֶ ֽמּ ֶלְך‬, ֵ like Zabud son of Nathan in 1 Kgs 4:5. As Whybray notes, the function of the “king’s friend” is not known. It is intriguing, however, that Hushai acted as a counterpart to Ahitophel, the king’s counselor par excellence (‫)יוֹעץ ָדּוִ ד‬ ֵ (R. Norman Whybray, “The Sage in the Israelite Royal Court,” in Wisdom: The Collected Articles of Norman Whybray, ed. Katharine J. Dell and Margaret Barker [Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005], 261–67, specifically 262–65). In his advice to Absalom, Husahi makes prominent use of animal imagery, just like Agur. And as Otto shows, there often existed a close personal relationship, even friendship, between court jesters and the rulers they served (Otto, Fools Are Everywhere, 47–95). Besides Agur, then, Hushai may well be the closest equivalent to a court jester we can find in the Bible.

52

Human Interaction with the Natural World

appears at the beginning of the prophets’ oracles or books, similar to its position here.8 The impression that the person who introduced Agur’s performance wanted to attribute its contents to the prophetic genre is also strengthened by the next word, ‫נְ ֻאם‬, “pronouncement,” another popular designation for prophetic utterances. It appears 377 times in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, and in 368 of these the term refers to a divine oracle pronounced by a prophet. Typically, such divine oracles regale God’s people regarding their religious and social shortcomings. The introduction in Prov 30:1a is raising a strong expectation that the live performance it introduces has a prophetic edge, and the unexpected nature of this genre in the book of Proverbs may itself be intended as humorous. Even though all nine exceptions to the rule contribute to the ironical portrayal of Agur as an undercover prophet, I will restrict my comments to those related to the prophet Balaam, the person most prominently associated with the expression ‫נְ ֻאם ַהגֶּ ֶבר‬, “oracle of the man.” Two expressions are of particular interest. In Num 24:4 + 24:16, there is a reference to “an oracle of one who knows the words of God” (‫נְ ֻאם שׁ ֵֹמ ַע‬ ‫י־אל‬ ֵ ‫)א ְמ ֵר‬ ִ in each verse. This person is said to be “one who sees the vision of the Almighty, who falls down, but with eyes uncovered” in Num 24:4b+c and 24:16c+d, the latter verse adding that this person “knows the knowledge of the Most High” (‫ )וְ י ֵֹד ַע ַדּ ַעת ֶע ְליוֹן‬in 24:16b. First, the phrase “who falls down, but with eyes uncovered” (24:4, 16) probably describes a trance-like state which causes the seer-prophet to fall down. The reference to the open eyes then indicates that he is experiencing supernatural visual revelations while in a trance.9 Second, the reference to “the oracle of the man” coming from someone who “knows the knowledge of the Most High” (‫וְ י ֵֹד ַע ַדּ ַעת ֶע ְליוֹן‬, only in v. 16 of Num 24) reveals the rather disconcerting truth that Balaam knows what God knows. It may be compared with Agur’s similar note at the end of a sequence of 8.  Cf. the designation of prophetic oracles as ‫ ַמ ָשּׂא‬in Isa 13:1; 14:28; etc.; Ezek 12:10; Nah 1:1; Hab 1:1; Zech 9:1; 12:1; Mal 1:1. So unusual is the mention of a prophetic oracle in the so-called wisdom literature, a number of scholars have proposed to emend the expression ‫ ַה ַמּ ָשּׂא‬to ‫“( ִמ ַמּ ָשּׂא‬from Massa”) or ‫“( ַה ַמּ ָשּׂ ִאי‬the Massaite”), in analogy with ‫ ַמ ָשּׂא‬in Prov 31:1, which can be taken to indicate the realm over which King Lemuel ruled; cf., e.g., R. Norman Whybray, Proverbs, NCB (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994), 407. However, the adjacent word ‫ נְ ֻאם‬suggests that “oracle” is the intended meaning, as Waltke argues (Waltke, The Book of Proverbs, 454). 9.  Philip J. Budd, Numbers, WBC 5 (Waco: Word, 1984), 269.

H

Of Leeches, Lizards, and Lions

53

three claims to his ignorance and folly in vv. 2–3, which we will consider in detail below. Agur’s final claim in v. 3, “but knowledge of the Holy One I have,” is an intentional allusion to Num 24:16, and it may suggest to Agur’s audience that he, like the famous Balaam, knows more about them than they might be comfortable with. We will return to this shortly, but first we need to consider a part of the announcement of the speaker which seems to undermine Agur’s authority, as part of his portrayal not as a traditional prophet, but as a jester. I am referring to the names Agur and Jakeh. The names suggest that we should not take Agur’s words too seriously, despite their prophetic energy. Jerome’s translation in the Vulgate suggests that these names were nicknames rather than the real names of the speaker and his father. Jerome translates verba Congregantis filii Vomentis, “words of the Gatherer son of Vomiter.”10 Admittedly, the Hebrew of the name Jakeh is from the root ‫יקה‬, which has nothing to do with vomiting. However, the word sounds exactly like the 3rd ms. sg. imperfect form of the verb ‫קיא‬, “to vomit,” as in the fish who vomits (‫ )וַ יָּ ֵקא‬Jonah onto dry land (Jonah 1:11). In a spoken performance, the name of Agur’s father sounds like “he vomits.” This phonetic pun pokes fun not only at the father, but at Agur as well, for the tag “son of Vomiter” invites humorous inferences. It suggests that Agur’s father may have earned himself the label. Perhaps he was a jester, too, and developed such a reputation for producing what his offended audiences considered “verbal garbage” that he acquired a nickname for it. Taboo language like vomit in this introduction invites the conclusion “like father, like son.” Irreverent, impolite and outright insulting, it is also incongruous and thus hilariously funny, fitting for a professional Fool. I now return to Agur’s allusion to the claim that Balaam was someone who “knows the knowledge of the Most High” (Num 24:16), mentioned above. There we noted that the claim that Balaam knows what God knows may be compared with Agur’s similar remark at the end of a sequence of three claims to his ignorance and folly in vv. 2–3: he is “too stupid to be human” (v. 2a), lacks human understanding (v. 2b) and has not studied wisdom (v. 3a). The fact that Agur talks about wisdom and knowledge of God also suggests that his discourse is not a prophetic oracle in the strict sense, but an ironically conceived hybrid between a wisdom instruction and a prophetic utterance, precisely the kind of crossbreed one might

10.  Bonifatius Fischer, ed., Biblica Sacra: iuxta Vulgatam Versionem (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1984), 984.

54

Human Interaction with the Natural World

expect from a jester. The series leads us to expect that the fourth and final expression will also assert his intellectual incompetence, and this is how the NRSV and most modern interpreters take it.11 Yet, his fourth claim in v. 3b surprises us with the emphatic claim, “but knowledge of the Holy One/holy ones I have” (‫ !)וְ ַד ַעת ְקד ִֹשׁים ֵא ָדע‬The word ‫קד ִֹשׁים‬, ְ translated variously as “Holy One” or “holy ones,” is a polysemous pun. The first translation captures the reference to God (see Num 24:16) and the second translation captures a sarcastic reference to humans like Ithiel and Ukal (v. 2), superhumans in their own eyes who consider themselves superior to anyone else, which we will discuss shortly.12 Agur suddenly and unexpectedly claims intimate knowledge of God. For members of his audience who have caught the allusion to Balaam and the pun on ‫קד ִֹשׁים‬, ְ Agur’s claim sounds ominous. If the Fool before them knows what God knows, he knows more about them than they would like him to! What follows is an enigmatic combination of three words: ‫יאל‬ ֵ ‫ית‬ ִ ‫ְל ִא‬ ‫יאל וְ ֻא ָכל‬ ֵ ‫ית‬ ִ ‫ל ִא‬.ְ There is no consensus over its interpretation. There are two traditional approaches to solve the puzzle. First, the phrase is taken to introduce Agur’s audience; it contains two names, one of which is repeated, hence “To Ithiel, to Ithiel, and Ukal” (e.g., NIV, JPV). Second, the text is emended to arrive at a range of verbal phrases in which Agur exposes his shortcomings. These fall into multiple categories, but we will focus on the two most popular ones: “I am not God; I am not God, that I should prevail.” (NAB)

Here the repeated word (“Ithiel”) is divided into three different words and repointed in Aramaic, from lᵉʾîtiʾēl to lāʾ + îti + ʾēl, to arrive at what appears to be a humble admission of his mere humanity on Agur’s part.13 “I am weary, O God; I am weary, O God, and worn out.” (ESV)

11.  Cf., e.g., Yoder, Proverbs, 281; Ernest C. Lucas, Proverbs, The Two Horizons Old Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 188; Fox, Proverbs 10–31, 850, 854–55. Waltke resisted the temptation to import the negation from v. 3a, but still ended up with an interpretive translation by assigning the verb a conative nuance, “I want to experience,” which in the end still leaves Agur without knowledge (Waltke, The Book of Proverbs, 456). 12.  Note also the similar emphatic cognitive accusative constructions (‫וְ י ֵֹד ַע ַדּ ַעת‬ ‫ ֶע ְליוֹן‬vs. ‫ )וְ ַד ַעת ְקד ִֹשׁים ֵא ָדע‬in Num 24:16 and Prov 30:3b, with the verb and its direct object from the same root! 13.  Cf. the discussion in Waltke, The Book of Proverbs, 455 n. 9.

H

Of Leeches, Lizards, and Lions

55

Here the repeated word (“Ithiel”) is divided into two different words, from lᵉʾîtiʾēl to lāʾîti + ʾēl, and the first word is understood to be the verb ‫לאה‬, “to be weary.” This takes the phrase as Agur’s acknowledgment that he was approaching death. In line with this, the last word, wᵉʾukāl, is then changed to wāʾēkel, taking it to be the verb ‫כלה‬, “to fade away.”14 By contrast, I propose an interpretation which aims to show (1) that Agur’s words are part of a public performance, delivered viva voce, and (2) that his words are humorous, aiming to dupe his audience into laughing not only at him, but also at themselves. My argument proceeds as follows, beginning with my own free translation, which seeks to draw out, for the sake of this thought experiment, the ambiguous and potentially humorous nature of Agur’s words: The words of Agur15 son of Vomiter. An oracle, the prophecy of the-man, to Ithiel, “I-am-not-God” and “Can-do-it-all.” “Yes, I am too brutish to be a man, and the insight of a human I have not, I have not studied wisdom, …but I have the knowledge of the Holy One/but I surely recognize hypocrites!”16

My proposal combines the first main approach with version one of the second main approach. First, all three words in the sequence are names. Second, the repeated word in the middle should read as a three-word combination consisting of lāʾ + îti + ʾēl, which combine into a nickname with the meaning “I-am-not-God.” Third, Agur has invented this fictitious expression and placed it onto the lips of Ithiel, who represents his 14.  This is the interpretation adopted by Fox, Proverbs 10–31, 850, 853–54. 15.  Or: “Hireling, Harvester”; the verb means “to harvest” (Deut 28:39; Prov 6:8). The verbal noun means “harvest” (Prov 10:5). Harvest time is a high-impact phase in the agricultural cycle, and in pre-industrial times seasonal workers needed to be hired, hence “hireling.” 16.  The interpretation as plural can refer to “holy ones” in the sense of members of the heavenly court or angels (Waltke, The Book of Proverbs, 456; Fox, Proverbs 10–31, 855). However, these are not in view in Agur’s performance. The identification of ‫ ְקד ִֹשׁים‬as an honorific plural is a popular one and I agree, but it may not only refer to God, but also to “O so holy ones,” people who assume the air of holiness, who fake it. The label “hypocrite” in English has no connection with holiness, but the German word “Scheinheiliger” (= hypocrite), a compound of the words “fake” and “holy one,” shows that such connections do exist in some languages. Since there does not seem to be another known word for hypocrite in Biblical Hebrew, it is possible, even likely, that this is one of the ways in which hypocrites have been labeled, and that Agur is exploiting this circumstance. If this is correct, then pragmatic translations like “I know what hypocrites are up to” or “I know a hypocrite when I see one” are also possible.

56

Human Interaction with the Natural World

audience. Fourth, the stroke of comical genius lies in a sound play: the preposition followed by the name Ithiel (lᵉʾîtiʾēl) sounds like the statement “I-am-not-God” (lāʾ•îti•ʾēl). We have a double entendre. Fifth, Ithiel is thus made to declare the words “I-am-not-God,” and Agur turns this into an insincere protestation which exposes Ithiel’s hypocrisy. He marks the three words as a quotation presented in the emphatic intonation of feigned sincerity which turns it into its opposite: “I-am-not-God,” proclaims Ithiel, but he is made to say it in a tone and manner which shows that he does not mean it. Sixth, by sandwiching the statement “lāʾ + îti + ʾēl” with names, and using a soundplay on Ithiel, Agur turns that statement, which he considers to be so characteristic of the “Ithiels” in his audience, into a name that exposes who they are. They are the “I-am-not-God”-sayers. Having made themselves the centers of their universe and having acquired godlike importance in their self-estimation, they nonetheless feign humility by claiming the opposite of what they really think: “I-am-not-God,” they say, even though the way they behave betrays that that is exactly how they are thinking of themselves. Seventh, the third word in the Hebrew, ‫א ָכּל‬, ֻ also is a name, but one made up for the occasion. It is both a proper name, “Ukal,” and a verbal phrase with the meaning “I can” or “I am able.”17 The verb lacks an object, and so the speaker tacitly asserts his confidence that he or she can do anything, an expression of supreme confidence that Agur uses to expose the boundless arrogance of the Ithiels in the audience. For this reason, I have created a neologism, “Can-do-it-all,” in analogy with “know-it-all.” In sum, I propose that the first three words of Agur’s spoken-word performance introduce his audience. Intriguingly, he portrays them with a sarcastic twist which contributes to the humorous nature of what follows later in his performance. The Idiom of the Jester in Proverbs 30:10–33 Cause for amusement can be found almost everywhere. I will, however, focus on four pervasive features in Agur’s performance which bind all of its parts together into improvisations on a common theme, greed.18 They are animal imagery, the packaging of the performance into parcels of

17.  For an overview of the various possibilities of analyzing the word, see Waltke, The Book of Proverbs, 468 n. 102. 18.  This common theme is also recognized by Waltke, who identifies greed and hubris as common themes in all parts of the chapter (ibid., 464).

H

Of Leeches, Lizards, and Lions

57

four, the structural metaphor G E C F , and verbal links. They are strategically deployed and combine to prompt humorous inferences which reveal the jester’s idiom. The Humorous Quality of Animal Talk We return briefly to Agur’s first claim to intellectual incapacity, for it shows us how animal talk saturates the entire presentation and creates a humorous dynamic. His claim “I am too brutish to be a man” (v. 2a) is another way of saying that he is like an animal. The humor derives from conceptual incongruity and from inverted superiority. Our orator was putting himself down to make the audience feel superior, causing them to be amused and to laugh at him. By doing so, however, he put them off guard, leaving them unprepared for the barrage of insult he was about to unleash on them. The final irony in all of this is the circumstance that in the second part of his performance, it is animals like leeches, lizards and lions who are doing the humorously provocative work for him. Talk of animals begins in v. 14. A greedy generation of humans is portrayed as a bunch of wild animals, an identification which is facilitated by the structural metaphor G E C F . Greed leads to behavior described in grotesquely shocking language: the teeth of this generation are “swords” and “knives,” which they use to “devour” (‫)ל ֱאכֹל‬ ֶ the poor and drive the needy into extinction. The language exposes what greedy people really are. They are animals, “as cruel and rapacious as wild beasts.”19 And this fits with the guiding theme of Agur’s performance. Having confessed to his own sub-human, brutish nature in v. 2, he covertly signals the main purpose which drives his performance: the exposure of the real animals in the room, the Ithiels in his audience, the rapacious human beings whose beastly behavior threatens the very fabric of society. In pursuit of this goal, Agur deploys a menagerie of wild and domestic animals to teach them a lesson or two. Animals appear in five of the seven identifiable segments in the second part of Agur’s routine. We hear about leeches (v. 15a), observe raptors (vv. 17, 19a) and snakes (v. 19b). The stars of the show are ants (v. 25), rock badgers (v. 26), locusts (v. 27) and lizards (v. 28).20 Finally, a lion (v. 30), a he-goat (v. 31) and the enigmatic

19.  Fox, Proverbs 10–31, 867. 20.  A magisterial discussion of the precise identification indicated by the Hebrew designations for these animal species can be found in Tova Forti, Animal Imagery in the Book of Proverbs, VTSup 118 (Leiden: Brill, 2008).

58

Human Interaction with the Natural World

zarzīr motnaim (an animal of unknown identity) show up, and all of them deliver Agur’s lesson plan for him. As Forti has observed, here it is not only important to pay attention to how these various animals are portrayed throughout the Bible, but also to pay attention to “how the literary conception of the animal emphasizes the wise teacher’s didactic tendencies.”21 It is no accident that, when it comes to the critique of the powerful, analogies with animals are the instrument of choice. It is the indirect nature of this rhetorical ploy that makes it relatively safe for those who venture to challenge those in power. Even an influential prophet like Nathan used animal imagery (“one little ewe lamb,” 2 Sam 12:3) to teach King David a lesson when he confronted him over his misconduct regarding Bathsheba and her husband. The Humorous Quality of the Number Four The number four is of course not funny as such. Rather, the particular form of the graded numerical saying (in the form “three things…, four…”) in this chapter underscores the importance of the items in the list and heightens their symbolic power. By ranging unlike things together in this rhetorically heightened fashion, a sense of incongruity is created which creates the humorous effect.22 Furthermore, it also acquires its humorous quality in combination with other humorous techniques and through the way in which Agur deploys it in his performance, again to prompt humorous inferences, either through making the audience feel superior to the animals (and their human counterparts) which appear,23 or through the release of tension, for example relief from stressors such as anxiety, fear, conflict or shame/embarrassment,24 or through the resolution of apparent incongruities by supplying additional information which is typically trivial and thus surprising and amusing.25 The list of generations in vv. 11–14 has four entries, with the fourth, climactic item capturing greed, the defining characteristic of the kinds of persons who are being described. This number is then matched in 21.  Ibid., 7. 22.  The graded numerical saying is a popular form in the Bible and in other ancient Near Eastern literature (see the discussions in Michael V. Fox, Proverbs 1–9: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 18a (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 222–23, and Fox, Proverbs 10–31, 863, with references). What has to date not been appreciated sufficiently is the humorous effect which such graded numerical lists can have, in Prov 30 at least, and perhaps elsewhere. 23.  Larking-Galiñanes. “An Overview of Humor Theory,” 4. 24.  Ibid., 5. 25.  Ibid., 12–15.

H

Of Leeches, Lizards, and Lions

59

all numerical sayings which follow: four things that are never satisfied (vv. 15–16);26 four things beyond comprehension (vv. 18–20);27 four earth-shattering things (vv. 21–23);28 four small but wise creatures (vv. 24–28);29 four creatures strutting their stuff with brazen, ostentatious confidence (vv. 29–31).30 The Humorous Quality of Greed as Excessive Consumption of Food The conceptualization of greed as the consumption of too much food begins in Agur’s prayer in vv. 8–9. He prays for “neither poverty nor riches” (v. 8b) and asks God to feed him with just enough food, “lest I be filled” (‫)פּן ֶא ְשׂ ַבּע‬, ֶ a physical condition which might lead him into arrogant self-sufficiency (in the case of riches), theft (in the case of poverty), or heresy (in the case of being filled). The consumption of more food than necessary is not only a consequence of greed; rather, it reflects the vice of greed itself in the person who desires excess and acts on that desire when given the opportunity, even when that opportunity is presented as a gift. Agur here serves himself up (pardon the pun) as a role model who displays the virtues of honesty (vv. 8a, 9b), contentment (vv. 8b, 8c, 9a), humility (v. 9b) and piety (v. 9c), the very opposites of the vices which will appear in the list of generations in vv. 11–14.31 The list of generations thus describes the vices of the Ithiels in Agur’s audience, in particular the vices of impiety (v. 11), self-deception (v. 12), arrogance (v. 13) and greed (v. 14). The list climaxes on the vice of greed, and it does so by imagining such people behaving like rapacious animals. 26.  Waltke, The Book of Proverbs, 486–88. 27.  Interpreters typically focus on the claim that the items in the list are “too wonderful” and neglect the second claim that the speaker does not “understand” them (‫ ;)לֹא יְ ַד ְע ִתּים‬e.g., ibid., 491. As a consequence, they take the saying at face value and infer awe and wonder. In my reading, the claims are hyperbolic and ironical, for there is nothing extra-ordinarily difficult about a snake moving over a rock-face or a vulture flying in the sky, etc. 28.  Fox, Proverbs 10–31, 862, 873–78. 29.  Ibid., 878–79. 30.  Interpreters typically take the sequence at face value and refer to the “stately gate” of all four creatures mentioned in the list as if they were of the same kind (ibid., 880–81). In my reading, there is a humorous contrast between the lion on the one hand, and the other three on the other. 31.  I agree by and large with Waltke’s positive interpretation of Agur, albeit from a different perspective (cf. Waltke, The Book of Proverbs, 467–81). My interpretation contrasts with more conventional interpretations, which treat vv. 11–14 in isolation, the partial exception being Fox (Proverbs 10–31, 867).

60

Human Interaction with the Natural World

In v. 15a, this is followed up with the mention of leeches, bloodsuckers who are notorious for feeding on the blood of their unsuspecting human prey. The idea that a leech should speak is in itself funny, since the body shape of these parasitic worms is a huge “mouth” with which it sucks blood from its victims, and no head. The leech is all mouth and no brains. The image is grotesque, an instrument of humor as it combines the experience of surprise with the sensation of revulsion. Verses 15–16 list four greedy entities who lack the virtue of content and are completely devoid of self-control. Their greed is unsatiable, they will never be “full” (‫)לֹא ִת ְשׂ ַבּ ְענָ ה‬. While all four of these appear to be non-human entities, they are personifications, acting as if they were human. Sheol (= death) consumes living things, especially humans, with its mouth (Isa 5:14; cf. Prov 7:27); the womb of a woman desperate for children swallows sperm; parched soil soaks up water like a human person drinks it; and fire “devours” everything in its path. There is no overt mention of greed in v. 17, but the consumption of food is alluded to nonetheless, in the grotesquely shocking reference to raptors pecking out the eyes of people who lack filial piety, presumably to consume them. Verses 18–20 are capped off with the miniature narrative about the adulterous woman. The detail that she “wipes her mouth” invites the imaginative reconstruction of what happened before. The metaphor imagines the sexual satisfaction she had experienced in the sexual act as the satiation gained from the consumption of food.32 The list of persons who shake the foundations of society in vv. 21–23 includes a remark on a fool who consumes too much food. The list of small animals in vv. 24–28 also has a reference to food, but it is a telling departure from the pattern. Since this sequence is the only numerical saying in Agur’s performance which lists animals who exemplify behaviors which he wishes his audience to emulate, he inverts the pattern which characterizes greed as the excessive consumption of food. Humble ants become role models because they collaborate freely and contribute to the common good by producing food for the benefit of others. The Humorous Quality of Verbal Links We are now in a position to bring all of these observations together in an investigation of verbal links which offer an opportunity to present a summary of my interpretation of the material as a humorous routine.

32.  Lucas, Proverbs, 191; Yoder, Proverbs, 285; Whybray, Proverbs, 416.

H

Of Leeches, Lizards, and Lions

61

Proverbs 30:10–33 largely consist of self-contained sayings, and there has been a tendency to isolate the material into separate, unrelated units. Fox, for example, identifies vv. 10–33 as a “miscellany of epigrams” consisting of three short aphorisms (vv. 10, 15a, 17) which are interspersed in a series of seven independent epigrams, vv. 11–14, 15b–16, 18–20, 21–23, 24–28, 29–31 and 32–33.33 Similarly, Forti represents a wide scholarly consensus in treating the series of numerical sayings in isolation.34 However, this apparent miscellany is marked by numerous linking devices, and it is framed by instructions, a prohibition in v. 10 (‫אַל־תּ ְל ֵשׁן‬, ַ “do not slander”) and a verbless clause with imperative force in v. 32b (‫יָ ד ְל ֶפה‬, “[put your] hand to [your] mouth”), both of which urge wise restraint of the tongue in order to prevent provocation and avoid conflict. Below I will argue that these instructions determine the pragmatic impact of the enclosed material. These verbal links encourage the inference, already mentioned earlier, that the real target of the material from vv. 10–33 are the types of people mentioned in vv. 11–14 and 21–23. The list in vv. 11–14 catalogs people who despise their parents, are delusionally self-righteousness, who are excessively arrogant and uncontrollably voracious, vices which make them extremely irritating and dangerous. Similarly, the list in vv. 21–23 catalogues personae whose sudden rise to power makes them arrogant, a mental state which promotes overbearing and unrestrained behavior which takes advantage of others and thus makes “the earth,” that is their social environment, tremble with fear, and perhaps also with anger and resentment (cf. also v. 32). They are the “Ithiels” and the “Ukals” of v. 1. As Fox noted, vv. 11–14 are really “a series of complex noun phrases with no expressed predicate.”35 This creates a sense of syntactical incompleteness. Essentially, however, it is a list. G. Sauer tried to “fix” the syntactical and formal anomalies. He turned the list into a numerical proverb through prefixing it with the phrase “Three things there are that the Lord hates, four his soul does loathe” which he adapted from Prov 6:16, and in one swoop established syntactic and formal compliance.36 Fox rejected Sauer’s proposal on the grounds that the four generations are in reality a single group.37 He further dissolved the syntactical incon-

33.  Fox, Proverbs 10–31, 862. 34.  Forti, Animal Imagery in the Book of Proverbs, 103–29. 35.  Fox, Proverbs 10–31, 865. 36.  Sauer, Die Sprüche Agurs, 103. 37.  Fox, Proverbs 10–31, 865.

62

Human Interaction with the Natural World

gruity and the conceptual incompleteness through implicature: “Nothing is said about this generation, for the description is enough to condemn it.”38 Sauer deserves credit for drawing attention to the unusual form and the incompleteness of the list. Nonetheless, I agree with Fox that our list does not need fixing, because the author of Prov 30:10–33 used the unusual form of the list to create a sense of suspension and intrigue, and he did in fact provide a means to achieve completion. The lack of predicates in the list raises interest and anticipation, and completion is reached at the level of the composition as a whole. It is a pseudo-riddle, and the following materials solve it, to amusing and satisfying effect. In other words, the vices listed in vv. 11–14 receive their just deserts through the sequence of numerical proverbs and their associated aphorisms in vv. 15–31. Four arguments support this claim. First, greedy people are lampooned by calling them leeches in vv. 15–16. Second, the punishment for unfilial behavior is described in gory detail in v. 17. Third, delusional self-righteousness is compared to the brazen insouciance of an adulteress in v. 20, which rounds off the numerical saying in vv. 18–19. Fourth, the socially destructive consequences of their arrogance are exposed in two numerical sayings. The one in vv. 21–23 evokes the dread inspired by people who unexpectedly rise from humble beginnings to exalted status. Lacking the social skills and values appropriate and necessary for their new standing, they are bound to cause trouble. The one in vv. 29–31 evokes disdain through the amusing description of ridiculously ostentatious conceit, unwarranted in comparison with the real power of the lion, the first example in the list. In conclusion, then, the observations made about animal-talk, the greed metaphor and other verbal links, strengthen our proposal that vv. 15–31 are indeed humorous expansions which supply what seems to be missing in vv. 11–14, an observation frequently made which we will explore in detail below. If these observations warrant my conclusion, then a more comprehensive interpretation presents itself. First, the labels “a generation” are cyphers for Agur’s audience. The list portrays the vices which he has observed among the members of his audience. In other words, he follows through on his claim in v. 3b, to know what the Holy One knows and to know the secrets of the members of his audience. Should they take offense, however, he can feign innocence by claiming that he was talking about different generations, people who lived in the past.

38.  Ibid.

H

Of Leeches, Lizards, and Lions

63

Second, we can now identify what the two framing injunctions in vv. 10 and 32–33 contribute to Agur’s performance: (1) The prohibition in v. 10 warns off members of Agur’s audience who may take offense at his provocative talk. They might report Agur to his employer. In anticipation, Agur threatens them with retaliation. The threat is made to sound funny, like a little dog yapping at a lion. (2) The instruction in v. 32 is presented as the apodosis of a conditional clause which challenges the audience to examine their attitudes and behavior (foolish disposition, selfpromotion, evil plans). It ingeniously forces those who feel offended to admit that they are, in fact, guilty as charged. The effectiveness of Agur’s critique depends on its humorous nature, its capacity to speak truth to power in ways which disarm the displeasure of despots and yet prick their consciences. The jesters’ most powerful weapon has always been their ability to make the powerful laugh—at the jesters’ pranks, at their own follies, or at both. This is the way of the professional Fool, that ubiquitous figure who appears across space and time wherever the powerful misuse their dominance to abuse those under their charge. Conclusion The interpretation of Proverbs 30 as the written record of a court jester’s routine before an elite audience has explanatory power for more features of the text than any other that I am aware of. This thought experiment has turned into a real possibility for the interpretation of Proverbs 30, albeit with sympathetic tongue in cheek. By all accounts, Agur is an unusual character. The Hebrew Bible/Old Testament is full of quirky characters such as Elisha, Ezekiel or Jonah, to name but a few. Agur emerges from this colorful crowd as exceptionally provocative and funny. His performance is exquisitely witty, a disarmingly subversive exploration of human character, and it is the ingenious juxtaposition of human and animal character traits which gives Agur’s performance its ironically humorous quality. I hope to have convinced the colleague whom we celebrate in this volume that Agur is indeed a jester, and that his words are funny. But even if not, should I have succeeded in putting a smile or two on her face while reading, this small token of our friendship will have been more than worth the effort.

Chapter 5

“M

C

A

( P 4 9 : 1 2 [ MT 13]): A I P 49:9–21

T

P

: ”

A Q

*

Katharine J. Dell

Introduction Of all the contenders for the “wisdom psalms” genre category, Psalm 49 is one of the most obvious.1 It is on nearly every scholar’s list.2 The reason is clear—it echoes sentiments from Proverbs, Job and Ecclesiastes and there is some kind of intertextual resonance of at least one of these traditionally classified “wisdom” texts in nearly every verse in the Psalm.3 *  It is a pleasure and an honor to dedicate this article to my commentator collaborator and friend Tova Forti. We share an interest in many things, notably in anything to do with wisdom, and a true sympathy of spirit and meeting of minds. This essay is also to help her to recall the difference between “sheep” and “ships” (in-joke!). 1.  Other obvious contenders, with which Ps 49 shares many resonances, are Pss 39, 73 and 139. See Katharine J. Dell, “ ‘I will solve my riddle to the music of the lyre (Psalm XLIX 4 [5])’: A Cultic Setting for Wisdom Psalms?,” VT 54 (2004): 445–58. 2.  There are a very few exceptions in the scholarship; one is Avi Hurvitz, Wisdom Language in Biblical Psalmody (Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1991) [in Hebrew] who does not include it on strictly linguistic criteria. See the helpful chart in Simon Cheung, Wisdom Intoned: A Reappraisal of the Genre “Wisdom Psalms,” LHBOTS 613 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015), 188–90. 3.  Tova L. Forti, “Like A Lone Bird on a Roof”: Animal Imagery and the Structure of Psalms, Critical Studies in the Hebrew Bible 10 (Philadelphia: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2018), writes “The universal address proclaiming the revelation of the profound wisdom and deep insight required to deal with the perplexity of human experience offers a framework of wisdom and understanding for resolving enigmatic problems and conflicts…with no easy answers in the vein of the moral-philosophical issues raised by Job and Qoheleth” (14 n. 17).

D

“Mortals Cannot Abide in Their Pomp”

65

Even if we seek to get away from Gunkelian genre classification4 and use different criteria for aligning texts as wisdom, we can find, to employ the criteria of Simon Cheung, a “pervasive intellectual tone” and “didactic orientation” combined with a “ruling wisdom thrust” which together add up to signature traits of the family of wisdom psalms.5 He acknowledges, however, that the psalm varies from its “wisdom” interlocutors when he writes, “Themes which are of little concern to both Proverbs and Ecclesiastes (e.g. the topoi of afterlife existence and descriptions of psalmist’s plight) are enlisted to sharpen and intensify the dominant wisdom themes, displaying a phenomenon analogous to the musical technique of ‘variations on a theme’.”6 In this essay I am interested in the particular resonances of this psalm with the book of Ecclesiastes and also with the use of animal imagery in the psalm. I will test Cheung’s statement of whether the psalm goes further than Qoheleth in its “topoi” and look especially at their shared theme of death as the great equalizer for humans and animals alike. It is interesting that the first six verses of the Psalm contain no echo of Ecclesiastes, texts from Proverbs being the dominant influence (plus a few from Deuteronomy and Job). Whilst vv. 7–8 are closer to Job with the idea of a “ransom,” it is from v. 9 that we find sentiments more resonant of Ecclesiastes. Let us take a preliminary look at these links. Intertextual Links Between Psalm 49:9–21 and Ecclesiastes/Qoheleth Verse 9 follows on from the themes of vv. 7–8 that the ransom of life itself is beyond monetary price—“there is no price one can give to God for it” (v. 7a). It contains a hypothetical sentiment “that one should live on forever and never see the grave,” an agreed impossibility in the light of the fact that all die (cf. Ps 89:48). Life is given by God and is beyond price but it is also taken away. The intertextual echo with Eccl 8:8 makes this clear—“No one has power over the wind to restrain the wind, or power over the day of death; there is no discharge from the battle…” The battle 4.  Hermann Gunkel, The Psalms: A Form-critical Introduction, trans. Thomas Horner (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967). [Original German: H Gunkel, Die Psalmen: Übersetzt und erklärt, HAT 2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1926).] Gunkel’s work has had a lasting influence in the field. 5.  Cheung, Wisdom Intoned, uses these three criteria throughout his book and applies it to seven different psalms, finding them to a greater or lesser degree: Pss 37, 49, 73, 128, 32, 39 and 19, in that order. 6.  Ibid., 99.

66

Human Interaction with the Natural World

image is a profound one—once part of the army fighting the enemy there is no reprieve. Just as the wind cannot be restrained by humans (only by God), so humans have no power over when they die. This is in the context of human inability to know the future (8:7). Ecclesiastes 12:5 also speaks of the inevitability of death in the context of old age “because all must go to their eternal home, and the mourners will go about the streets.” The resonances between the psalm and Ecclesiastes then expand in v. 10. The psalmist continues with the point that all die—wise and foolish together (v. 10). One’s moral behavior in life does not affect the shared fate of all human beings. And moreover, they have to leave their wealth to others, indeed, everything for which they have striven. These two sentiments are very familiar from Qoheleth’s pen. The first half of Ps 49:10 contains significant intertextual overlap with Eccl 2:14–16. Verse 14 begins a train of thought that “the same fate befalls all of them [wise and fools]” that Qoheleth then applies to himself in v. 15. Why bother to be wise if death is a common fate? Verse 16 then shifts the emphasis slightly in the direction of remembrance—“For there is no enduring remembrance of the wise or of fools, seeing that in the days to come all will have been long forgotten. How can the wise die just like fools?” Not only then will both groups die but neither will be remembered by future generations. The sentiment of the second half of Ps 49:10 is shared by Eccl 2:18–21, which airs the point that “I must leave it [‫‘ עמלי‬my toil’] to those who come after me” (2:18),7 and then comes back to the wise/ foolish distinction. One has no control over whether one’s inheritors will be wise or foolish and yet they will inherit everything. In this context what will be inherited is not just the fruit of toil but also “everything” for which Qoheleth toiled and used his wisdom (2:19).8 This leads Qoheleth to despair (2:20) because “sometimes one who has toiled with wisdom and knowledge and skill must leave all to be enjoyed by another who did not toil for it” (2:21). I suggest that this passage 2:14–21 could almost be seen as a midrash upon this one verse in the Psalm, expanding its key points both in a general discursive manner and with a personal slant, as is Qoheleth’s style. In Ps 49:11 the psalmist states again the permanence of death, using the language of homes and “dwelling places” and of “generations” (cf. Eccl 1:4). The idea of an enduring name is recalled in the phrase “though they named lands their own.” It is not entirely clear what this phrase means—is 7.  Although ‫ עמל‬refers to the fruit of his toil, i.e. his possessions or wealth (so in the same sense as Ps 49:10 where ‫ חיל‬is used). 8.  Qoheleth returns to this theme in Eccl 5:15–16.

D

“Mortals Cannot Abide in Their Pomp”

67

it that they attempted to make their name outlive them or that they owned land or indeed that their horizons are this-worldly? I prefer the first possible meaning; as Terrien states, “Those who name their property, real estate or otherwise, as a lasting monument to themselves are full of illusions: only graves last forever.”9 The phrase taken in this sense recalls the lands owned by King Solomon, the persona taken on by Qoheleth in his royal autobiography (Eccl 2:4–7). Indeed, the comparison with Solomon could be taken further here, since he was the quintessential practitioner of both wealth and wisdom.10 This verse also echoes Qoheleth’s musings on a lasting name (e.g. in Eccl 6:4 the stillborn child has no name and Eccl 7:1 stresses the importance of a good name). Verse 12 is the first of two refrains in the psalm to which I shall return. But the echoes of Eccl 3:18–21 goes to the heart of the human/animal comparison which I will highlight in the second part of this essay. The idea that death will inevitably fall, and at any time, is paralleled in Eccl 9:12, which suggests that “like fish taken in a cruel net, and like birds caught in a snare, so mortals are snared,” an idea that Proverbs muses on too (Prov 1:17–18).11 In v. 13 death is the end for those foolish who are pleased with themselves (lit.: “their mouths”). This harks back to v. 10, although instead of wise and foolish, it is the fool who is the subject here (cf. Eccl 2:18–21).12 They are the ones who in v. 14 are headed for Sheol and certain death (cf. Eccl 12:7; cf. Isa 14:9) and compared to sheep (cf. Eccl 3:18–21 discussed below). A contrast is then drawn between the psalmist and these foolish who will die, that God will “ransom my soul from the power of Sheol” (49:15 echoing the “ransom” of v. 8). This is the verse that leads many to think that an afterlife is being posited here and comparisons are often made with Enoch and Elijah as the ones who did not die but were 9.  Samuel Terrien, The Psalms, Strophic Structure and Theological Commentary, Eerdmans Critical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 389. 10.  See Katharine J. Dell, The Solomonic Corpus of “Wisdom” and Its Influence (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020), specifically the chapter on Solomon. 11.  Tova L. Forti, “ ‘Even the Sparrow Has Found a Home’ (Ps 84:4): From Uprooting and Wandering to Safety and Intimacy,” in Networks of Metaphors in the Hebrew Bible, ed. D. Verde and A. Labahn, BETL 309 (Leuven: Peeters, 2020), 233–44. See also, in the same volume, Katharine J. Dell and Tova L. Forti, “ ‘When a Bird Flies Through the Air’: Enigmatic Paths of Birds in Wisdom Literature,” 245–62. 12.  Who is included in this category? Walter Brueggemann and William Bellinger, Psalms, NCBC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), include the wealthy and wise because they misperceive the world. I tend to think that it simply refers to fools of all kinds and societal status.

68

Human Interaction with the Natural World

“taken” by God. However, it could simply refer to the need for relationship with God. Brueggemann and Bellinger state that “[t]hose who stay close to God are assured of a sustaining relationship, which the pursuit of commodities can never provide”13 in support of this view. Or it could be, in my own view, that the psalmist, being wise, is hoping to escape the fate of fools, depending on whether we see the wise/fool contrast continuing here. The intertextual parallels with Ecclesiastes drop off in the next section of the psalm, although the sentiment in v. 17 that “when they die they will carry nothing away,” notably their wealth, is very much in the same vein as Qoheleth’s ideas. Verse 19’s “going to the company of their ancestors” and “never again see the light” also fit in with Qoheleth’s world view. It reminds one of Eccl 6:4–5 where the stillborn child has known nothing except darkness and Eccl 6:6 where “all go to one place.” The final refrain of the psalm also echoes Eccl 3:18–21 and it is to the specific human/ animal comparison that I shall now turn. Suffice it to say that there is a clear intersection of key ideas across these two texts including some intertextual resonances. Exactly what the historical relationship might have been between these materials is unknown to us,14 but in my view Ecclesiastes is likely to be later than the psalm and possibly took inspiration from some of its key sentiments.15 The Human/Animal Comparison in the Refrains of Psalm 49:12, 20 and in Ecclesiastes 3:18–21 In her book Like a Lone Bird, Tova Forti argues that the two refrains that use animal imagery shape the psalm. She writes, “The faunal imagery in Ps 49:13, 21 [Heb. verse numbering] heightens the atmosphere of contemplation and the claim that the rich endure the same death as the poor and the animal kingdom” (p. 11).16 She argues that the refrains highlight 13.  Brueggemann and Bellinger, Psalms, 230. 14.  Robert Gordis, “The Social Background of Wisdom Literature,” HUCA 18 (1943–4): 77–118, thinks it is important to reconstruct the historical situation during which both originated in order to grasp the relationship between them (78 n. 2). 15.  Forti, Like a Lone Bird, expresses the view that the psalm is late, finally structured at the time of Ben Sira, but with independent literary liturgical units that are earlier. 16.  The reference to “the poor” is to hark back to the opening of the psalm which is addressed to rich and poor alike (v. 2) and then seems to side with the persecuted who suffer at the hands of the rich. I am not so sure that we need necessarily align poor and animals so readily here.

D

“Mortals Cannot Abide in Their Pomp”

69

universal motifs in that “despite their splendor human beings neither possess understanding (v. 21) nor endure (v. 13)” (p. 90). In v. 12, the first refrain, far from being precious or pompous, humans perish just as animals do. This does not suggest to me that animals are lowly and hence that humans are being “brought down to their level” in some way, nor that it is highlighting the “brutishness” of human beings. Such views denigrate the value of the animals themselves.17 There is a recognition of the same fate for both—death, the great equalizer. Terrien thinks these are cattle marked for slaughter specifically, but that is to read into a more general statement here.18 This verse compares to Eccl 3:18–21, where Qoheleth indicates that human beings are simply animals—not just that both die, but that human claims to superiority are false. The common translation “but animals” (NRSV) gives the impression of denigrating humans, but in fact it denigrates the animals! Better to translate “like the animals” (so NIV), thus seeing the verse as giving a level comparison rather than an unequal one. This fits in with the sentiment in the next verse that humans and animals have “the same breath” (v. 19, i.e. the life-breath, ‫ ;רוח‬cf. Gen 1:30; 2:7; Eccl 12:7).19 Qoheleth goes on to say (v. 21) that, although some perceive a difference between the direction of travel (ascend/descend) of the human and animal life-breath (‫)רוח‬, this is not known.20 Thus the emphasis in this verse is on the not-knowing (the rhetorical question “Who knows?” begs the answer “No one knows”)—these are matters which are beyond human ability to discover. Rather, the more likely conclusion is that humans and animals meet the same fate, destined for the same place and to “turn to dust again” (v. 20; cf. Sir. 40:11).21 The second refrain in

17.  There is a growing body of literature on the place of animals, on the use of animal imagery and on animal theology itself. This was largely spawned by the work of Andrew Linzey; see Andrew Linzey, Animal Theology (London: SCM, 1994), and Linzey, Creatures of the Same God (Winchester: Winchester University Press, 2007). 18.  Terrien, Psalms. 19.  Greek influence led to a body/soul dualism being read into this passage. 20.  A similar distinction seems to be made in Job 12:1, which contrasts “the life of every living thing” and “the breath of every human being,” but this passage too is ultimately equalizing humans with all living things. 21.  There is some discussion whether “the earth” is meant as the place to which all return, or whether death or Sheol are the referents. G. A. Barton, Ecclesiastes, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1908) preferred the former interpretation seeing the earth as “one great cemetery.” R. E. Murphy, Ecclesiastes, WBC 23A (Dallas: Word, 1992), argued that the place to which all go is “the dust” (cf. Eccl 6:6) although Qoheleth is not unaware of Sheol (Eccl 9:10).

70

Human Interaction with the Natural World

v. 20 is not linguistically identical,22 but the sentiment is essentially the same in my view.23 The Metaphor of the Sheep (49:14–15) While the refrains refer to ‫( בהמות‬the generic word for animals) and there is no indication of why the animals perish (despite scholarly imaginations as to the reason!), leading one to assume that it is simply their death that is being registered here, there is one verse of the psalm that refers to specific animals, notably sheep. This image is not shared by Qoheleth but it is a familiar one from the wider Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. We might ask why this particular image is selected by the psalmist and what its resonances might be. The first part of v. 14 compares humans to sheep “appointed for Sheol.” This is another statement that all die, human and animal. Some have seen it as a specific reference to the slaughter of sheep for food, or for sacrifice, but not all sheep have such destinations since many ewes are used for breeding and just occasionally a sheep dies of illness or old age. The sheep image, though, also has the connotation of the herd (often used for the people of Israel, e.g., 2 Sam 24:17; Ps 74:1). It is well known that sheep follow each other—they are herding animals. This has the overtone that humans “as a herd,” that is, as a large group, are appointed for Sheol, one following the other in a herd-like mentality that views all as equal (and equally stupid?—sheep are not renowned for their intelligence). The statement that “death shall be their shepherd” is a stark one continuing the picture of being herded together and rounded up. Death is personified here—the grim reaper with a staff comes to mind. This is a common image in relation to sheep that they need a shepherd to keep them going in the right direction (Ps 119:176: “I have gone astray like a lost sheep). There are many references to sheep needing guidance (Num 27:17)—without a shepherd they will wander (Joel 1:18; Zech 10:2). Deuteronomy 22:1 states that if one sees sheep stray it is one’s obligation 22.  Leo G. Perdue, Wisdom and Cult: A Critical Analysis of the Views of Cult in the Wisdom Literatures of Israel and the Ancient Near East, SBLDS 30 (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977), argues that v. 21 contains the riddle to which the author refers in v. 5 while v. 13 contains the solution to the riddle. 23.  R. Davidson, Wisdom and Worship (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International; London: SCM, 1990), translates the two slightly differently to reflect the language and argues that the variation is deliberate: i.e. v. 12, “Man cannot abide in his pomp, he is like the beasts that perish”; v. 20, “Man in his pomp—and he does not understand, he is like the beasts that perish.”

D

“Mortals Cannot Abide in Their Pomp”

71

to take them back to their owner. The people of Israel when they went astray were often described as “sheep that have no shepherd” (1 Kgs 22:17; e.g., all Israel is described as such by Micaiah; cf. Isa 13:14; Jer 50:6 [in this case led astray by the shepherds]; and cf. Jer 23:1; Ezek 34:2–3, 6, 8). The psalmist goes on to describe that the grave and the deterioration of the body are the way that Death, the shepherd, leads them, to Sheol, the place of the dead and the place of no return.24 Although v. 15 does not contain the sheep imagery per se, it is a continuation of the same thought, as indicated by the particle ‫“( אך‬only,” “nevertheless”). By contrast, God will “ransom my soul from the power of Sheol.” It is interesting in reference to sheep that we often find them as a ransom or sacrifice (another example is Ps 44:11, 22, where the people describe themselves as “like sheep for the slaughter”). It is also important to note that God is often portrayed as the true shepherd of the sheep. So in Ps 78:52 God led the people like sheep and guided them in the wilderness like a flock. The people are often identified with God—“we are the people of his pasture and the sheep of his hand (Pss 95:7; 100:3). In the long sheep metaphor in Ezekiel 34, ultimately God, as shepherd, will rescue his sheep that had formerly been abandoned. And in visions of hope, God will gather together Israel like sheep in a fold (Mic 2:12) and “He will feed his flock like a shepherd and gather the lambs in his arms” and will gently lead the mother sheep. These are visions of a restored relationship with God and perhaps that is what the psalmist is hinting at here. Life cannot be ransomed (v. 8) but the true “ransom” for the soul is that Death does not have power over a true relationship with God, one that resembles the love of a Shepherd for his sheep and a true following by the sheep of their Shepherd. Shepherding is a role associated with patriarchs (e.g. Jacob guarded sheep in Aram) and kings (e.g. David was a shepherd boy; cf. 2 Sam 7:8) in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament and so is a highly regarded role, entirely appropriate as an image of the relationship between God and his people. There is perhaps a connection here between v. 15 and Eccl 3:21 where Qoheleth asks what happens to the spirit of human/animal at death. Whilst the soul (‫ )נפשׁ‬and the spirit (‫ )רוח‬are different terms, in both there is the suggestion of a separation of the spirit from the body and a hope that death might not entirely conquer the God-given essence of life. So the use of this image by the psalmist of Psalm 49 is a rich one and conjures up numerous intertextual links across the Hebrew Bible/ Old Testament. It is not, however, an image from the wisdom literature 24.  Cf. many other references to Sheol in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. See the discussion in Philip S. Johnston, Shades of Sheol: Death and Afterlife in the Old Testament (London: InterVarsity, 2002).

72

Human Interaction with the Natural World

itself—Job’s wealth is measured in terms of sheep among other animals, and having begun with 7,000 (Job 1:3) that number is doubled to 14,000 when he is restored (Job 42:12). Sheep were valuable not just for meat but also for wool (cf. King Mesha of Moab was a sheep breeder for wool, 2 Kgs 3:4). Lambs are mentioned in Prov 27:6 as providing clothing “and the goats the price of a field.” So, these animals are more connected to wealth and human well-being in the wisdom literature in general. However, other animal imagery is common in the usage of the wise and they clearly interacted closely with the animal world around them.25 Conclusion To conclude, I wish to go back to Cheung’s comment that I cited at the start of this study—“Themes which are of little concern to both Proverbs and Ecclesiastes (e.g. the topoi of afterlife existence and descriptions of psalmist’s plight) are enlisted to sharpen and intensify the dominant wisdom themes, displaying a phenomenon analogous to the musical technique of ‘variations on a theme’.”26 After this investigation, can we see Psalm 49 as somehow sharpening and intensifying dominant wisdom themes? My reference has been to Ecclesiastes alone, but I, at least in relation to this book, see the influence the other way around, from the psalm to Ecclesiastes. Certainly, there is a personal element to the psalmist’s plight, but then there is also a very personal element in Qoheleth. Further than that, Qoheleth, in particular in his midrash in 2:14–21 and in his musings in 3:16–21, can perhaps be seen as expounding on elements given rather shorter shrift by the psalmist. The image of variations on a musical theme is an attractive one to apply to Qoheleth, whose words are constantly repeating (keywords), twisting, reversing and coming full circle.27 Although he does not use the rich image of the sheep, his repeated conclusion that death is the leveler of humans and animals alike and that the attainment of wealth a vain thing is very much at home in the thought of the author of Psalm 49 too.

25.  See Katharine J. Dell, “The Use of Animal Imagery in the Psalms and Wisdom Literature of Ancient Israel,” SJT 53, no. 3 (2000): 275–91, and Tova L. Forti, Animal Imagery in the Book of Proverbs (Leiden: Brill, 2007). It is a strange co-incidence that both Tova and I wrote independently on animals before we knew each other. 26.  Cheung, Wisdom Intoned, 99. 27.  For more information on that, though, I refer the reader to our commentary— Katharine J. Dell and Tova L. Forti, Ecclesiastes/Qoheleth, IECOT (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, forthcoming).

Chapter 6

T

F B

S

A ’ E

I

Samuel L. Adams

Introduction The ancient sages of Israel and Judea employed animal imagery for a variety of purposes, particularly as a means of describing human experiences and shaping ethical norms. The authors and compilers of instructions observed the natural world in all of its wondrous complexity, and they recognized the enduring resonance of animal imagery to draw pithy conclusions and encourage certain behaviors. From ants (Prov 6:6–11) to ostriches (Job 39:13–18), their sayings and discourses reveal intricate knowledge of animals and their habits. These sapiential authors grasped (and perhaps shaped) the enduring inclination to understand ourselves and our “creature-liness” through the lens of animal behavior. No scholar has devoted more careful attention to the rich presentation of animals in the wisdom literature of ancient Israel than Tova Forti. In numerous articles and books, she has clarified the varied and at times eclectic presentations, with helpful categorizations.1 Forti delineates the range of literary devices and motivations for animal imagery: a “concretizing device in a motive clause” (e.g., the trapped bird in Prov 1:10–19), a vivid image in a consequence clause (e.g., the serpent who bites in Prov 23:32 to illustrate drunkenness), a situational clause (e.g., Prov 6:1–5 and the urgency of escaping surety like a deer or bird would flee a trap), in a simile (e.g., comparing a sparrow to someone wandering from home in Prov 27:8), as a didactic tool (e.g., the efforts of oxen at the harvest 1.  Among her many publications, Tova L. Forti, Animal Imagery in the Book of Proverbs, VTSup 118 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), is one of the authoritative works on this topic.

74

Human Interaction with the Natural World

in Prov 14:4), and in antithetical sayings (the bravery of a lion/righteous person contrasted with the cowardice of the wicked in Prov 27:1) and comparative ones (e.g., the various implements for steering animals and fools in Prov 26:3).2 In some instances, animals illustrate particular values, as in endorsing the desirability of vegetables and love in a household over a fatted ox and hatred (Prov 15:17). Forti also highlights sections that use animals as models for human behavior (e.g., the industriousness of the ant in Prov 6:6–11). With all of these categorizations, Forti’s intricate knowledge of the wisdom tradition, her penetrating skills as a linguist, and obvious affinity for animals make for insightful analysis. I raise her categories here, because they will be an essential guide in the following examination. In contrast to Proverbs, relatively little attention has been given to Ben Sira’s use of animal imagery.3 Though this later sage does not employ such comparisons with the same frequency and range as the compilers of Proverbs, Ben Sira offers animal sayings that indicate both his sociocultural location and understanding of human behavior. Because we can date this instruction with relative precision and since it reflects the values of an educated, conservative, scribal sage living in pre-Maccabean Judea, this instruction is an important touchpoint and worthy of more detailed examination.4 Earlier Studies of Ben Sira’s Use of Animal Imagery The most comprehensive and illuminating essay on animal imagery in Sirach comes from Nuria Calduch-Benages, where she explicates three different categories in the instruction. First is the use of animals to describe inappropriate behavior. Whereas most of the examples in Proverbs involve positive comparisons, Ben Sira tends to focus on negative tendencies. For 2.  Forti, Animal Imagery, 25–75. 3.  One of the few treatments of this topic is the excellent essay by Nuria CalduchBenages, “Animal Imagery in the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira,” in The Texts and Versions of the Book of Ben Sira: Transmission and Interpretation, ed. Jean-Sébastien Rey and Jan Joosten, JSJSup 150 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 55–71. 4.  The grandson’s prologue cites Ptolemy VII Euergetes (146–117 BCE), and if we account for approximately two generations, Ben Sira’s era (early second century BCE) is not really in dispute. The instruction reveals no explicit awareness of the punitive actions of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 BCE) against Judea. Moreover, the glowing praise of Simon II (219–196 BCE) in 50:1–21 indicates Ben Sira’s respect for the priesthood and implies that the author and this high priest were at least near contemporaries.

A

The Functions of Animal Imagery in Ben Sira’s Ethics

75

example, this instruction refers to lions as exemplars of greedy, imperious behavior in Sir 4:30, which might be translated as follows: “Do not be like a lion in your house, one who is insolent with your servants.”5 Since the quality to be avoided relates to lions, then the verse presumably refers to violence, intimidation, or at the very least, a patronizing attitude. Although the translation here differs slightly from that of CalduchBenages (following Ms C for this particular verse), the undeniable sense is that a person with means should treat underlings with respect, rather than flaunting authority, and the lion is a negative example in this regard. For the second usage of animal imagery in Sirach, Calduch-Benages cites the author’s tendency to use animals as a means of illustrating social categories. Ben Sira devotes a great deal of attention to hierarchies, social distinctions, and the need to recognize behavioral dynamics. His advice reflects a rigid understanding of class and possibilities for social advancement, and he clearly affirms that the habits of animals can inform our understanding of social structures and human actions. One key section in this regard is Sir 14:17–19: How can the wolf accompany the lamb So it is with the wicked and the righteous. How does the comfort of the hyena benefit the dog? How does the prosperity of the rich benefit the poor? The wild asses of the desert are food for lions, similarly, the poor are the pasture of the rich.6

5.  See Samuel L. Adams and Eric D. Reymond, Ben Sira, Yale Anchor Bible (forthcoming). Our translation follows Ms C. The text of Ms C and the Greek contain “lion” (Heb. ‫ ;אריה‬Gr. λέων), while Ms A and Syriac have “dog” (Heb. ‫)כלב‬. The versions differ in their description of the quality that should be avoided. Although the connection between the animal and the undesirable quality is sometimes logical (lion–insolence in Ms C and dog–estrangement in Ms A), in some other cases the connection has been obscured. In the Greek, which mentions a lion, the quality to be avoided seems to be frantic behavior (Gr. φαντασιοκοπέω), which one might associate with a dog. Based on the preceding context in Sir 4 that deals with proud behavior, our forthcoming commentary assumes that the original text read ‫“( כלבי‬like a lion”; cf. Deut 33:20), which was then misread as ‫“( ככלב‬like a dog”) by a Hebrew copyist and then transmitted as such into Syriac. Ms C (‫ )כאריה‬is either an attempt to avoid any confusion with “dog” or could be an early alternative reading. The Hithpael participle, ‫מתפחז‬, conveys the sense of being “insolent” and therefore rude. The translation, “with your servants,” follows the Greek and the Syriac. 6.  See Adams and Reymond, Ben Sira. This translation basically follows Ms A, without the addition in v. 17c.

76

Human Interaction with the Natural World

As Calduch-Benages argues of the rival animals in this section (wolf and lamb, hyena and dog, wild asses and lions), they have absolutely nothing in common and are natural rivals: “Therefore, any kind of association (‫ )חבר‬or peaceful relationship (‫ )שׁלום‬between them is unconceivable. Indeed it goes against nature.”7 So it is with the wealthy and the poor, in Ben Sira’s estimation. The imagery in v. 19 compares the predatory tactics of the lion to the rapacious attitudes of the wealthy. Just as the “wild asses of the desert” are vulnerable to a powerful lion, a poor individual is helpless against a rich counterpart seeking to exploit. In this regard, animals serve a useful function in demonstrating social categories. Finally, Calduch-Benages, cites a “new paradigm” tendency with animal imagery, where in several instances Ben Sira takes a traditional saying or legal exhortation and engages in a creative reinterpretation. One example and a controversial one at that is 25:8ab, as Ben Sira compares the Deuteronomic law involving mixed species of animals (Deut 22:10) to a husband whose wife is lacking in intelligence. Ms C is the best text to follow here, and the verse reads “Happy is the husband of an intelligent wife, and he who does not plow as an ox yoked with a donkey.” Ben Sira’s use of the beatitude in 25:8 does not refer to polyamorous marriage, but to spouses of differing intelligence (the oxen is equivalent to the perceptive husband and the donkey to the headstrong, stupid wife). Such a declaration is indicative of Ben Sira’s sexist attitude throughout the instruction, and the animal imagery conveys the sense of being “unevenly yoked” in a marriage (cf. Paul’s description in 2 Cor 6:14).8 With such an interpretive move, Ben Sira employs animal imagery to alter the common understanding of familiar sayings and principles (cf. Sir 11:3). New Categories for Animal Imagery in Sirach While Calduch-Benage’s three categories of animal imagery are noteworthy and convincing, additional passages suggest that Ben Sira uses animal imagery in other ways. Drawing on the helpful frameworks of Forti and others, the present essay would like to suggest three other categories in which the sage turns to creatures as a means of making significant assertions about human behavior. First is the use of animals to illustrate human behavioral patterns, as in discussing entrapment and the wily tendencies of the intelligent and/or rich in the simile of Sir 11:30. Another type occurs in Sir 27:9–10, which describes birds nesting with 7.  Calduch-Benages, “Animal Imagery in the Hebrew Text,” 64. 8.  For a more detailed discussion on this passage, see ibid., 70.

A

The Functions of Animal Imagery in Ben Sira’s Ethics

77

their own kind as a corollary to honesty thriving under its practitioners. Conversely, dishonesty will lead to destruction in the same manner that a lion destroys prey. This would correlate with Forti’s delineation of antithetical categories in Proverbs. Finally, we may add an additional category of sexist or arguably misogynistic passages that involve animal imagery, as exemplified in Sir 26:7, which compare a rebellious, unfaithful wife to a scorpion. The remainder of the discussion will unpack these additional categories in order to assess more fully Ben Sira’s use of animal imagery. Our examination will demonstrate that this instruction tends to invoke animals in negative examples, especially in warning against dishonest or boorish behavior. This sapiential author encourages pragmatism, caution, and preservation of the social order (while advocating for justice and fairness towards the poor), and therefore animals tend to serve his purpose as negative, often disturbing examples. Finally, we will consider why Ben Sira does not include more animal imagery in the instruction, especially in places where descriptions of the natural world are lengthy and intricate. One example is the praise of Lady Wisdom in ch. 24, where he sketches all types of plants but does not refer to any type of creature. Animals as an Illustration of Human Behavioral Patterns First we turn to Sir 11:30, which can be translated as follows: “The arrogant mind is like a bird trapped in a cage, like a spy it watches for your demise.” This translation follows the first and last cola of Ms A, which has obviously been expanded to include a large variety of animals.9 The last word of the translation follows the Greek (and Syriac): πτῶσιν (“demise” or “fall”).10 As with most verses of this instruction, arriving at the best translation for a particular saying can be quite difficult when comparing the versions.

9.  Ms A reads in full: “The arrogant mind is like a bird trapped in a cage, like a wolf waiting in ambush for its prey; how many are the transgressions of the one making unjust profit, he is like a dog that enters and eats the house; the one who does violence, thus is the one making unjust profit; he enters and sets contention for all their bounty; the gossip waits in ambush like a bear at the house of scoffers; like a spy he watches nakedness.” 10.  Regarding this last form, the Hebrew text from which Greek and Syriac derive included ‫( תרעלה‬lit., “staggering,” as in Isa 51:17), which was then changed to ‫ערוה‬ based on the common usage of this word as an object of ‫ ראה‬and its appearance with ‫ רגל‬in Gen 42:9.

78

Human Interaction with the Natural World

The point of the saying is that an exploitative, intelligent person can take advantage of an unsuspecting friend or associate. Following the first and last cola of the verse in the Hebrew, the topic here is an “arrogant mind” and the possible dangers it might cause to another individual. The sage describes a “trapped bird” (‫ )כעוף אחוז‬that presumably lashes out in a state of anger, frustration, and manipulation, trying to capitalize on any perceived weakness in his “prey” (note that the Greek calls this creature a “hunting partridge,” giving the verse a more aggressive twist). References to birds in various states appear repeatedly in the Hebrew Bible, and Forti is once again the authoritative source for the relevant passages, which Ben Sira would have known and adapted for statements like the one in Sir 11:30.11 Skehan and Di Lella translate the animal phrase as a “caged hunting falcon” (presuming Gr. ἱέραξ and Heb. ‫)נץ‬, presumably so that it offers a clearer parallel to an “arrogant mind.”12 Undoubtedly some of the expansions in Ms A, especially the addition of the wolf, were intended to make the “arrogant mind” seem even more menacing. As many commentators have noted, there is similar language to Sir 11:30 in Jer 5:26–28: For scoundrels are found among my people; they take over the goods of others. Like fowlers they set a trap; they catch human beings. Like a cage full of birds (‫)ככלוב מלא עוף‬, their houses are full of treachery; therefore they have become great and rich, they have grown fat and sleek.

In this passage from Jeremiah, the prophet describes the evil plans of “scoundrels” using a bird analogy, and it seems clear (especially in the Ms A expansions) that the author and editors of Sir 11:30 utilized the language from Jeremiah.13

11.  Tova L. Forti, “ ‘Even the Sparrow Has Found a Home’ (Ps 84:4): From Uprooting and Wandering to Safety and Intimacy,” in Networks of Metaphors in the Hebrew Bible, ed. Danilo Verde and Antje Labahn, BETL 309 (Leuven: Peeters, 2020), 233–43. 12.  Patrick W. Skehan and Alexander A. Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, AB 39 (New York: Doubleday, 1987), 244. The lengthy expansion in Ms A is dependent on Jer 5:27 and includes “garbled doublets” that make for an “astonishing zoo.” 13.  See ibid.; Rudolf Smend, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach Erklärt (Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1906), 112.

A

The Functions of Animal Imagery in Ben Sira’s Ethics

79

The warning in Sir 11:30 matches the wariness in the adjacent verses about persons who threaten the stability and well-being of others. Ben Sira cautions against the gossip in v. 29, the “one who murmurs” in v. 31, a “sinister person” in v. 32b, a “criminal” in v. 33, and a hostile stranger in v. 34. All of these types pose a threat to the unsuspecting, righteous persons who are not savvy, exposing them to the harsh possibilities of human behavior and the potential for devastating loss. A great deal of advice in the instruction, including in this section, attempts to convey the serious effects of manipulative tactics and the need to be worldly-wise. Without a guarded demeanor, an individual can easily fall into injurious situations, especially when dealing with deceitful persons (cf. Prov 1:4). Caution is necessary in the public square and when inviting individuals into one’s home or affairs. The likening of scheming persons to birds and entrapment also appears in Proverbs, as in the invitation of vengeful youths to an impressionable lad in ch. 1 (Prov 1:17–18; cf. Prov 7:23; Jer 5:26–27). As Forti convincingly explains, the “net” in Prov 1:17–18 and the birds do not refer to innocent victims but to “evildoers caught in their own web.”14 It is perhaps noteworthy that the ensnared person and animal in Proverbs and Sir 11:30 are evildoers. The type of behavior in the two passages is different: in Proverbs, the subject matter is ruffians whose lives are ultimately ensnared by their sinfulness, while in Sir 11:30, the “trapped bird” is an intelligent person who is seeking to exploit others. Yet the use of bird imagery in both passages to describe wrongdoing and dangerous types is significant. Before turning to our next category, the question arises as to how we describe Sir 11:30. It does not necessarily fit Calduch-Benages’ “appropriate behavior” category, since this is more of a warning about someone else and not an exhortation to avoid acting like a “bird trapped in a cage.”15 Neither does this animal imagery correlate with a social distinction like rich and poor, since the “trapped bird” represents more of a personality type than a larger cultural grouping. Rather, the bird in this verse seems to illustrate specific behavioral patterns and tendencies. Following Forti’s categorizations of Proverbs, this is a clear use of a simile (“The arrogant 14.  Forti, Animal Imagery in Proverbs, 29. She compares this scene in Prov 1:17–18 to similar language in Ps 35:7. 15.  Calduch-Benages, “Animal Imagery in the Hebrew Text,” 62 n. 40, cites Sir 11:30 in her section, “Animal Imagery as Social Categories.” Yet these various hypothetical figures in ch. 11 constitute moral categories, which Calduch-Benages does note as a subset of this type. The present essay is claiming that Sir 11:30 represents an ethical commentary on human behavioral patterns.

80

Human Interaction with the Natural World

mind is like a bird trapped in a cage”) and Ben Sira uses it as an accessible means of describing a dangerous personality type. The sage’s example here is a warning, reflecting his detailed, colorful efforts in describing what to avoid in the world. Ben Sira’s Use of Antithetical Categories The next example appears in Sir 27:9–10, where Ben Sira contrasts different animals to encourage proper behavior. The Hebrew is not extant for these verses, but following the Greek, it reads “Birds lodge with their own kind, and honesty comes to its practitioners. A lion lies in wait for prey, and sin works in similar fashion for the unrighteous.” The sense here is straightforward: those who demonstrate integrity and fear of the Lord tend to flock together, and those who are honest and trustworthy in their interactions will benefit from such behavior. Such a declaration evokes for English speakers the familiar saying that “Birds of a feather flock together.” Unlike most of the descriptions involving animals in this instruction, this one is a positive one, such that the image conveyed is of a faithful covey of birds in parallel structure with “honesty” (most likely Heb. ‫ )אמת‬and “those who practice it.”16 Conversely, lions are natural aggressors who destroy their prey, just as “sin” (probably Heb. ‫ )עון‬will attack those who exhibit unrighteous behavior. Lions are clearly a favorite choice in Sirach, serving as a vivid example of voracious behavior of an imperious, menacing sort (cf. Sir 4:29–31). As Calduch-Benages argues, for Ben Sira the lion’s “roar and his ferocity characterize the king of the beasts, and these qualities make him a fearsome animal, although less dangerous—according to Ben Sira—than a wicked woman!”17 In Sir 27:10, the lion represents the power of sin to destroy someone completely and ferociously, and this serves as a warning to engage in honest dealings with one’s neighbors. We find a similar declaration in Sir 21:2–3: “Flee from sin as from before a snake for if you approach it, it will bite you; its teeth are the teeth of a lion, destroying the human soul. Each transgression is like a twoedged sword, there is no healing from its wound.”18 The sense here is that

16.  See M. H. Segal, Sēper ben-Sîrā’ haššālēm, 4th ed (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1997). 17.  Calduch-Benages, “Animal Imagery in the Hebrew Text,” 58, who is speaking (among other passages) of Sir 25:16: “I would rather live with a lion or a dragon than with an evil woman.” 18.  See Adams and Reymond, Ben Sira.

A

The Functions of Animal Imagery in Ben Sira’s Ethics

81

sin has a power of its own, the ability to destroy a human soul the same way a snake with lion’s teeth can kill a person. Such an assertion correlates somewhat with animal imagery in Proverbs to describe wayward behaviors (e.g., Prov 23:32, where excessive wine consumption eventually “bites like a serpent”). Yet in Sir 21:2–3 and 27:9–10, the focus is not one particular behavior, but the ferocious ability of sin to destroy one’s soul. In this sense, “truth” and “sin” in 21:2–3 and 27:9–10 are almost personified, external entities with a capacity to impose contentment or punishment, according to human conduct.19 And with these examples, the sage appears to utilize animal imagery, especially the lion, as a means of accentuating the stakes. Returning to 27:9–10, the birds and lions are examples of antithetical categories. The favorable bird is in parallel structure with “honesty”/“truth,” and the attack of lions is the consequence of sin. These different categories indicate the importance of virtuous behavior in Ben Sira’s ethical framework, and he juxtaposes two animals as a means of illustrating two distinct paths. “Sin” can destroy its practitioners, just as a lion devours its prey (cf. 21:2–3). Ben Sira’s warnings in these verses may not be particularly sophisticated, but this author clearly understands the timeless resonance of animal imagery to encourage certain behavioral patterns and the fact that snakes, lions, and birds are particularly memorable and effective examples. Animals as an Illustration of the Dangerous Female Ben Sira’s attitudes towards women are jarring and controversial, and the relevant passages have received a great deal of attention in scholarly discussions.20 He warns repeatedly about a headstrong, recalcitrant daughter (e.g., Sir 42:9–14), and makes demeaning comments about wives and women in general (e.g., Sir 25:24; 26:6–9; 42:6). Much debate has occurred as to whether Ben Sira’s remarks on women reflect a common, sexist perspective during late Second Temple Judea or if his statements indicate something more drastic and misogynist that cannot be dismissed as characteristic of the time.21 Some commentators find more nuance in

19.  E. Pax, “Dialog und Selbstgespräch bei Sirach 27,3–10,” SBFLA 20 (1970): 247–63. 20.  See, e.g., Claudia Camp, Ben Sira and the Men Who Handle Books: Gender and the Rise of Canon-Consciousness, HBM 50 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2013). 21.  John J. Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997), 67.

82

Human Interaction with the Natural World

Ben Sira’s presentation, such that his presentation is “complex, subtle, and depends on the context of the individual sayings.”22 However one comes down on this question, there is no denying the disturbing language used about women in this text, such as the better–than saying in 42:14: “Better is the wickedness of a man than the goodness of a woman.” Several statements involving women and wives in Sirach involve animals, such as 26:7 (Gr): “An evil wife is an irritating yoke; taking/ marrying23 her is like taking hold of a scorpion.” This is one of the few places in the instruction where we find the phrase, “evil woman,” without any qualifiers or descriptions of her offensive behavior (Sir 25:16 has γυναικὸς πονηρᾶς; see below).24 With regard to the first half of 26:7, this is an indirect reference to oxen, such that a difficult wife has a stranglehold on the relationship, and the husband has little space to maneuver. It is possible that Sir 26:6 is necessary context for this verse, so that the issue is rivalry among wives (cf. Rachel and Leah in Gen 30:14–15).25 Yet it is far more likely that v. 7 is independent of the previous one and therefore a more general reference to an insufferable, rebellious wife. With regard to v. 7b, the connotation is that scorpions can sting and inflict poisonous harm (cf. Deut 8:15) on anyone who comes into contact with them; by extension, an evil wife can do the same to a naïve husband. As with the impossibility of cradling an active scorpion, there is no chance for salvaging the relationship. As Skehan and Di Lella explain: “If the husband were to correct or reform such a wife, he would be sure to feel her sting, which indeed could be described, with the words used earlier in a similar context, as ‘harder to bear than death’ (v 5d).”26 Subsequent verses in this section are more specific, taking up the “drunk wife” (v. 8), the “unfaithful wife” (v. 9), and the “unruly wife” (vv. 10–12). We find a similar assertion involving animals and a difficult wife in the previous chapter: “I would rather live with a lion or a dragon than with an evil wife” (Sir 25:16). As with 26:7, this warning attempts to arouse fear about the aggressive tactics of a sinful, recalcitrant wife. As Balla explains, this statement in 25:16 and the one in 26:7 speak to the impossibility of living with such a person. Such language involving animals in

22.  Ibolya Balla, Ben Sira on Family, Gender, and Sexuality, DCLS 8 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), 10. 23.  This translation presumes a Hebrew of ‫ נשא‬or (less likely) ‫לקח‬. 24.  Balla, Ben Sira on Family, Gender, and Sexuality, 51. The only place where there is extant Hebrew for this phrase is 42:6 (Ms B), which has ‫אשה רעה‬. 25.  Ibid. 26.  Skehan and Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 350.

A

The Functions of Animal Imagery in Ben Sira’s Ethics

83

Sirach is more forceful and disturbing than what appears in a passage like in Prov 25:24: “It is better to live in a corner of a housetop than in a house shared with a contentious wife” (cf. Prov 21:19).27 Such comparisons constitute another category, which is the use of animal imagery to depict dangerous, combative females. The examples shown above are wholly negative and reflect this author’s particular, offensive language concerning women and the dangers they pose to husbands and fathers. With sayings involving lions, dragons, and scorpions, Ben Sira conveys stark warnings that appeal to visceral, sexist inclinations. His use of animal imagery is both effective in terms of its memorability and disturbing for the connections he draws, ones that exceed anything in Proverbs or other Jewish instructions. Conclusions The aims of this study have been relatively modest: to examine Ben Sira’s use of animal imagery, building on the excellent work of Calduch-Benages and the lucid categories for animal imagery set forth by Forti. Proposed here are three additional categories beyond what Calduch-Benages has offered (she was only studying Hebrew passages): (1) animals as an illustration of human behavioral patterns; (2) Ben Sira’s use of animals in antithetical categories; (3) animals as an illustration of the dangerous female. In nearly all of the relevant passages, animals signify negative and menacing examples: a restless, conniving, smart individual (a “trapped bird” in Sir 11:30), the power of sin to destroy someone, just as a lion destroys its prey (Sir 27:10), and a combative wife resembling an aggressive scorpion in one’s hand (Sir 26:7). Unlike Proverbs, the vast majority of animal descriptions in Ben Sira involve threatening images. Conclusions about why this is the case are admittedly speculative, but one possible reason is the enduring power of animal imagery to instill fear. Lions, scorpions, and snakes can arguably provoke a frightened reaction that accentuates whatever point is being made far more than any comparisons involving human beings. Finally, one point worthy of further study is why Ben Sira does not include more animal imagery in this lengthy instruction. Since we find such numerous examples in Job and Proverbs, among other sapiential texts, it is curious that the authors and compilers of Sirach do not offer more animals in the sayings, especially in places like ch. 24, where natural imagery abounds in the praise of Woman Wisdom. Camp points to a 27.  Balla, Ben Sira on Family, Gender, and Sexuality, 91.

84

Human Interaction with the Natural World

“de-personalization” of Woman Wisdom, such that her female qualities are reduced and deemphasized.28 The presentation of arboreal and food imagery is plentiful in ch. 24 and in other passages, but there is a noticeable lack of animal imagery. The possible reasons for this absence in ch. 24 and elsewhere are complex and well beyond the scope of the current discussion. Tova Forti has shown that when it comes to descriptions of the natural world, there are always new angles and topics to pursue, and the present writer is grateful for her templates and her voice.

28.  Camp, Ben Sira and the Men Who Handle Books, 88–89.

Chapter 7

T

A

Z

S

11:30*

Nuria Calduch-Benages

Reading Tova L. Forti’s book Animal Imagery in the Book of Proverbs1 gave me enormous pleasure, and even before reaching its conclusion, I thought that it could become an inspiring model for my doctoral students. And so it has been. It is a great privilege for me to contribute to this Festschrift in honor of Professor Tova L. Forti, an outstanding scholar and dear friend with whom I share many research interests and exegetical approaches. I value and respect her career accomplishments and wish her many more years of productivity and personal fulfilment. Forti’s monograph shed light on various aspects of my 2011 article on animal imagery in the book of Ben Sira. On that occasion, I merely mentioned Sir 11:30 in a footnote, not including it in the list of selected passages due to its textual complexity.2 I am most appreciative that the editors of the current Festschrift have offered me the opportunity to fill this gap. In fact, Sir 11:30 is noteworthy because of the accumulation of zoological images. As in my previous publication, my main interest is to study how Ben Sira uses animal imagery as a didactic and rhetorical means to explore the nature of human behavior.

*  I borrow the expression from Patrick W. Skehan and Alexander A. Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira: A New Translation with Notes, Introduction and Commentary, AB 39 (New York: Doubleday, 1987), 244. 1.  Tova L. Forti, Animal Imagery in the Book of Proverbs, VTSup 118 (Leiden: Brill, 2008). 2.  Nuria Calduch-Benages, “Animal Imagery in the Hebrew Text of Ben Sirach,” in The Texts and Versions of the Book of Ben Sira: Transmission and Interpretation, ed. Jean-Sébastien Rey and Jan Joosten, JSJSup 150 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 62 n. 40.

86

Human Interaction with the Natural World

The Hebrew Text of Sirach 11:30 Sirach 11:30 is only attested in a bifolio of MS A that Elkan Natan Adler purchased and published in 1900 (ENA 2536–2).3 To be precise, it is in the most damaged, second folio (verso), which contains Sir 11:10–12:1. This bifolio is currently preserved in the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York. In 2012, following an examination of recent high-resolution photographs, Jean-Sébastien Rey published a new, completely revised edition of the bifolio4 in order to provide scholars with a reliable text for future studies. His reconstruction of the text, philological notes and translation have been very useful for the present study. It goes without saying that I do not intend here to repeat his thorough and careful analysis—only to indicate the most relevant textual problems of our pericope and its transmission. In what follows I provide the Hebrew text of MS A according to J.-S. Rey’s edition with a personal translation. For a better understanding of Sir 11:30, we report v. 29 as well. ‫לא כל איש להביא אל בית‬ ‫ומה ֯רבו ̇פ ֯צ ֯עי̇ רוכל‬

29a 29b

‫֯כ ̇כ ̇לו֯ ̇ב ֯מלא ֯עו֯ ̇ף‬ ‫כן בתיהם מלאים ̇מ ֯ר ֯מ ̇ה‬ ‫גאה‬ ̇ ‫כעוף אחוז֯ בכלו̇ ֯ב לב‬

29c 29d 30a

‫רף‬ ֯ ‫לט‬ ̇ ‫֯כזאב א ֵֹרב‬

30b

‫מה רבו פשעי בוצע‬

30c

‫באו̇ כל בית‬ ̇ ‫ככלב הוא‬ ‫וחומס כן בוצע בא‬ ‫[בתם‬ ֯ ]‫ומשים ריב לכל ֯ט‬ ‫֯אורב הרוכל כדוב לבי̇ ת לצים‬

30d 30e 30f 30g

‫יראה ערוה‬ ֯ ‫וכמרגל‬

30h

Do not let anybody enter in [your] house [for] many are the wounds of the peddler. Like a cage full of birds, their houses are full of deceit. Like a captive bird in a cage, [so is] the heart of the malicious, like a wolf lying in wait to tear into pieces. How numerous are the scams of the swindler, he is like a dog devouring a house. Causing damage, so enters the swindler and contending for all their goods. The peddler spies, like a bear, the scorners’ house, and like a spy he observes [its] unprotected parts.

3.  Elkan N. Adler, “Some Missing Chapters of Ben Sira,” JQR 12 (1900): 466–80; cf. Israel Lévi, “Notes sur les ch. VII.29-XII.1 de Ben Sira édités par M. Elkan N. Adler,” JQR 13 (1901): 1–17. 4.  Jean-Sébastien Rey, “Si 10,12–12,1: Nouvelle édition du fragment Adler (ENA 2536–2),” RevQ 100 (2012): 575–603.

C

-B

The Astonishing Zoo of Sirach 11:30

87

Verse 29 Unlike in the versions (Gr., Syr. and Lat.)5 where 11:29 [31 in Lat.] has two cola (ab), in the Hebrew text it has four (abcd). 29ab. The first colon is attested in b. Yeb. 63b and b. Sanh. 100b: “Keep the multitude from your house, and do not let everyone enter your house.”6 Gr. and Syr. read “your house” too. In the second colon, instead of “peddler” (‫ )רוכל‬Gr. reads “deceitful” (δόλιος) = Syr. MSS 248 (Cod. Vat. Gr. 347), and some minuscule codices read διάβολος instead of δόλιος, emphasizing the severity of the warning. 29cd. This bicolon is a literal quotation of Jer 5:27 which a scribe probably introduced as an explanatory note to 30a. The use of the plural ‫—בתיהם‬ not fitting in the context—confirms its spurious character. It is lacking in Gr., Syr. and Lat., but attested in b. Sanh. 100b and b. Yeb. 63b: “Many are the blows sustained by peddlers.”7 Verse 30 The transmission of this verse appears to be quite complex, yet the Hebrew text—much longer than the other versions—makes sense.8 It has eight cola, while the versions only have two (Gr.), and five (Syr., Lat.). The cola bcdefg are lacking in Gr. (30ah Heb. = 30ab Gr.). In Syr. the 5 cola correspond approximately to acde/f and 30b is closer to Gr. than to Heb. In Lat., 32[30]bd correspond to 30a and 32[30]e to 30b Gr.; cola a and c are additions from the translator and have no correspondence with any other text. 5.  For the Gr., cf. Joseph Ziegler, ed., Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach, Septuaginta, 2nd rev. ed., Vetus Testamentum Graecum XII/2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980); for the Syr., cf. Nuria Calduch-Benages et al., Wisdom of the Scribe: Diplomatic Edition of the Peshitta of the Book of Ben Sira According to Codex Ambrosianus, with Translations in Spanish and English, 2nd rev. ed., Biblioteca Midrásica 26 (Estella: Verbo Divino, 2015); for the Lat., cf. Walter Thiele, ed., Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Vetus Latina. Die Reste der altlateinischen Bibel 11/2 (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1987–2005). 6.  Benjamin G. Wright, “B. Sanhedrin 110b and Rabbinic Knowledge of Ben Sira,” in Treasures of Wisdom: Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom: Festschrift Maurice Gilbert, ed. Nuria Calduch-Benages and Jacques Vermeylen, BETL 143 (Leuven: Peeters, 1999), 42. 7.  Ibid., 43. 8.  Rey, “Si 10,12–12,1: Nouvelle edition,” 601.

88

Human Interaction with the Natural World

30ab. Gr. (πέρδιξ), Syr. (ḥgl’) and Lat. (perdix) identify the bird (‫)עוף‬ with the partridge. Skehan sees in the partridge a “caged hunting falcon” (Gr. ἱέραξ).9 The Latin translator adds other images that overload the text: Sicut enim eructuant praecordia fetantium (32a) and ut caprea in laqueum (32c; cf. Prov 6:5). According to Morla, who follows Smend’s suggestion, ‫“ גאה‬arrogant” (lit.: ‫לב גאה‬, “the heart of the arrogant”) does not fit in the context unless it is understood as “malicious.”10 The same expression, however, is found in Gr. (καρδία ὑπερηφάνου) and Syr. (lbh dg’y’). In the versions, the image of the wolf (30b) disappears: Gr. “like a spy he watches for the fall”; Syr. “like a watchman looking for catastrophe”; Lat. sicut prospectator videns casum proximi sui. 30cd. The first colon is a duplicate of 29b. It is lacking in Gr. while Syr. reads: “(for) how numerous are the debts of the wicked!” As for the second colon (lacking in Gr. and Lat.), some scholars (Segal, Beentjes)11 read ‫“( ככלב הוא בא ]ו[כל בית‬As a dog he enters in every house”), and place ‫“( וחומס‬and causes damage”) at the beginning of 30e. Others (Lévi, Yeivin)12 place it at end of 30d, instead (cf. Syr.: “As a dog which comes to every house and snatches [something] away”). However, the disadvantage of this option is that 30e would be too short (‫)כן בוצע בא‬. 30ef. As Morla rightly notes,13 the syntax of 30e is anomalous, since the colon should start with ‫כן בוצע‬. For this reason, he reads ‫( וחמס‬or ‫)וחומס‬ at the end of the colon. Both cola are lacking in Gr. and Lat. Syr. repeats 9.  Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 244. 10.  Víctor Morla, Los manuscritos hebreos de Ben Sira. Traducción y notas, ABE 59 (Estella: Verbo Divino, 2017), 107 n. 7; Rudolf Smend, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach (Berlin: Reimer, 1906), 112: “Das Wort bedeutet hier, wenn richtig, den Boshaften schlechthin” [the word here, if correct, means the malicious par excellence]. Others prefer “insolent (sinner)”; e.g. George H. Box and William O. E. Oesterley, “The Book of Sirach,” in APOT 1:357. 11.  Moshe Z. Segal, The Complete Book of Ben Sira, 4th ed. (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1997 [Hebrew]), 74; Pancratius C. Beentjes, The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew: A Text Edition of All Extant Hebrew Manuscripts and a Synopsis of All Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts, VTSup 68 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 38. 12.  Israel Lévi, The Hebrew Text of the Book of Ecclesiasticus Edited with Brief Notes and a Selected Glossary, Semitic Study Series 3 (Leiden: Brill, 1904), 17; Israel Yeivin, Spr bn syr’ / The Book of Ben Sira. Text, Concordance and an Analysis of the Vocabulary, The Historical Dictionary of the Hebrew Bible (Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language and the Shrine of the Book, 1973), 16. 13.  Morla, Manuscritos hebreos, 108 n. 4.

C

-B

The Astonishing Zoo of Sirach 11:30

89

“in every house” (“thus a wicked person comes to every house and brings trouble”). The translator probably read ‫ לכל בתים‬instead of ‫לכל ט]ו[בתם‬. 30gh. The difficulty of this colon lies in the last word (‫)ערוה‬, which the versions translate as “fall” (Gr. πτῶσις) and “catastrophe” (Syr. mpwlt’). The ‫ ערוה‬literally means “nakedness,” which is the meaning chosen by Mopsik in his translation: “les parties honteuses” (the shameful parts),14 that is, the genitals. Others, following Lévi, translate “the weak points”15 (cf. Gen 42:9 and Deut 24:1). However, it seems to me that in our verse ‫ ערוה‬refers to the “unprotected parts” of the scorners’ house:16 the peddler observes them carefully with the intention to commit theft—if not now, on another occasion. Sirach 11:30 and its Context According to Corley’s main divisions of the book, Sir 11:30 belongs to Part III (Sir 6:18–14:19), which he entitles “Applying Wisdom Socially.”17 More specifically, our verse is part of Sir 11:29–12:18, a section which recommends caution when dealing with certain kinds of people. This section is composed of three units: 11:29–34 (beware of the stranger); 12:1–7 (caution in doing good); and 12:8–18 (on friends and enemies). I am especially interested in 11:29–34 because it is the immediate context of 11:30. In spite of the confused state of MS A—full of variants with a low probability of authenticity—the instruction of 11:29–34 stands as a 14.  Charles Mopsik, La Sagesse de ben Sira. Traduction de l’hébreu, introduction et annotation, Les dix paroles (Paris: Verdier, 2005), 139. 15.  Israel Lévi, L’Ecclésiastique ou la Sagesse de Jésus, fils de Sira. Texte original hébreu. Seconde Partie, Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études. Sciences religieuses 10/2 (Paris: Leroux, 1901), 83: “les parties faibles”; Hilaire Duesberg and Irénée Fransen, Ecclesiastico, La Sacra Bibbia…a cura di Mons. Salvatore Garofalo. Antico Testamento (Turin: Marietti, 1966), 144: “I punti deboli”; Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 245: “weak spots or ‘defects’ ”; Rey, “Si 10,12–12,1: Nouvelle édition,” 590: “le point faible” (in sg.). 16.  Cf. Smend, Weisheit, 112: “eine schadhafte Stelle an der Stadtmauer”; and Norbert Peters, Das Buch Jesus Sirach oder Ecclesiasticus. Übersetzt und erklärt, EHAT 25 (Münster in Westfalia: Aschendorff, 1913), 103: “eine schwache Stelle der Mauer oder des Landes.” 17.  Jeremy Corley, “Searching for Structure and Redaction in Ben Sira,” in The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Studies on Tradition, Redaction and Theology, ed. Angelo Passaro and Giuseppe Bellia, DCLS 1 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008), 245.

90

Human Interaction with the Natural World

literary and thematic unit framed by the imperatives in v. 29 and in vv. 33 and 34. Admittedly, its delimitation is not so evident as in Gr. (οἶκόν, 29a; ἐνοίκισον, 34a), but it is not difficult to see the connection between ‫“( בית‬house”) in 29a and ‫( משוכן‬to be read ‫השכן‬, impv. of ‫שכן‬, “host [a stranger]”) in 34a.18 Moreover, the mention of ‫ בית‬in 29a, 29d, 30d, 30g and possibly in 34b (if we read ‫ מביתך‬instead of ‫מבריתיך‬, “your covenants,” which is quite strange referred to a person)19 and even 34d (if we read ‫מביתך‬, which corresponds to the Gr. τῶν ἰδίων σου, “your household,” instead of ‫במחמדיך‬, “what is precious for you,” cf. 31b)20 gives cohesion to the passage. That the whole instruction revolves around the “house,” meaning one’s own household, is beyond doubt. Ben Sira warns the disciple against the dangers of offering hospitality to strangers. The stranger (alluded to in 29a and explicitly mentioned in 34c) is another element that brings unity to the text. He is depicted in a multifaceted and negative way as a peddler (29b, 30g), an arrogant/malicious person (30a), a swindler (30c.e), a spy (30h), a talebearer (31a), a good for nothing (lit.: “man of Belial,” 32b), and a wicked person (34a). At first sight, the reader might think that these are different characters, but in light of the initial and final verses, they can also be understood as different faces of the main protagonist, namely, the stranger. Through this persuasive characterization the sage reinforces his call for caution. Opening the doors to the stranger—and having intimate friendship with him—may have unpleasant consequences not only for the “house” (disorder, dispute, robbery, etc.), but worst still, for the householder, who will become a stranger to his own family, possibly even without realizing it (34d). This is the bitter and ironic conclusion of the entire passage. Within 11:29–34, vv. 29–30, and in particular v. 30, are distinguished for the concentration of zoological images.21 This is unusual in the book, with the only exception being Sir 13:17–19, where the animals are 18.  For other alternative readings, cf. Rey, “Si 10,12–12,1: Nouvelle edition,” 603. 19.  Peters, Das Buch Jesus Sirach, 104; Morla, Manuscritos hebreos, 110 n. 1. 20.  Smend (Weisheit, 114) comments: “‫ במחמדיך‬könnte im Sinne von Hos. 9,16 Korrektur für ‫ מביתך‬sein, ist aber wohl nur aus v. 31 eingedrungen” [‫ במחמדיך‬could be correction for ‫ מביתך‬in the sense of Hos 9:16, but it is probably introduced only due to v. 31]. Cf. Morla, Manuscritos hebreos, 110 n. 5: according to him, ‫במחמדיך‬ could be a false reading of ‫מביתך‬. 21.  Cf. Georg Sauer’s comment in Jesus Sirach / Ben Sira, ATD Apokryphen 1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), 113: “Das eigene Haus gleicht dann einem Tiergarten, in dem jeder gegen jeder sich stellt” [One’s own house then resembles a zoo in which everyone is pitted against the other].

C

-B

The Astonishing Zoo of Sirach 11:30

91

presented in two contrasting pairs (wolf and lamb; hyena and dog).22 In our text, the four animals—all depicted negatively—are mentioned separately in different cola (‫עוף‬, “bird,” in v. 30a; ‫זאב‬, “wolf,” in v. 30b; ‫כלב‬, “dog,” in v. 30d; and ‫דוב‬, “bear,” in v. 30g).23 Grammatically, it is noteworthy that the nouns denoting animals are all attached to the comparative particle ‫( ְכ‬the comparatum is always placed at the beginning of the colon except in 30g), which not only makes the comparisons evident but puts a special emphasis on them. Animal Imagery and Human Behavior As in other passages of the book (cf. Sir 4:30; 33:6 and 42:13),24 in 11:30 animal images serve to exemplify reprehensible forms of human behavior dramatically and ultimately to warn the disciple about dealing with strangers. Let us now analyze these images. Decoy Bird: An Efficient Trap Ben Sira begins his instruction by recommending against hastily and indiscriminately opening one’s home to anyone (v. 29a), especially if the one knocking at the door is a peddler (‫רוכל‬, v. 29b).25 In the following colon (30a), he compares the arrogant (lit.: “the heart of the arrogant,” ‫ )לב גאה‬with a captive bird in a cage (‫)עוף אחוז בכלוב‬. As already noted, in view of the previous verse and the context of the whole instruction, ‫( גאה‬cf. Ps 140:6) should be understood here not as arrogance specifically but more broadly, that is, as a malicious person (perhaps a malicious gossiper). Otherwise, the text would not make much sense.26 The captive bird in a cage recalls Jer 5:27 (“As a cage is full of birds, so are their houses full of deceit”), where the prophet uses the same image to denounce the wickedness of the people of Israel who live by committing fraud. As we already mentioned, this is precisely the text that a glossator later introduced in Sir 11:29cd, probably in an attempt to explain 11:30a. 22.  Cf. Calduch-Benages, “Animal Imagery,” 63–5. 23.  If we consider the versions, then the list increases: partridge (30a Gr.) and goat (32[30]c Lat.). 24.  Cf. Calduch-Benages, “Animal Imagery,” 56–62. 25.  See, for instance, Song 3:6; Ezek 27:3; 1 Kgs 10:15. Peddlers had a reputation for being gossipy and nosy, so much so that the root ‫“( רכל‬to go about, from one to another”) is used to refer to the gossiper or slanderer (Lev 19:16; Ezek 22:9; Prov 11:13; 20:19). Cf. Rey, “Si 10,12–12,1: Nouvelle édition,” 601. 26.  See the emendation of Skehan: ‫לב ֵלץ‬,ֵ “the heart of the scoundrel” (Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 244).

92

Human Interaction with the Natural World

As in Jer 5:27, the image in the present verse of a bird in a cage brings to mind an effective technique to snare birds: by setting up a cage with food and putting another bird inside it. The cage is then closed with a door that allows other birds to get in but not out. Attracted by the singing of the captive bird, they easily fall into the trap. However, the most effective trap for catching large numbers of waterfowl is the clap-net, which consists of a net that can be closed instantly by pulling a string. This device was very popular in ancient Egypt. “When a group of birds moves into the catching area—explains Bailleul-LeSuer—the net is released and is thus thrown over the birds.”27

Fig. 7.1. Egyptian fowlers netting birds. Reproduced from Othmar Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 92, Fig. 115. Courtesy of Eisenbrauns.

Egyptian Fowlers Netting Birds Let us return to our text. What is the tertium comparationis? What quality is shared by the malicious person and the captive bird? As Smend rightly states, it is “the dangerousness of the seemingly harmless.”28 Indeed, at 27.  Rozenn Bailleul-LeSuer, “From Kitchen to Temple: The Practical Role of Birds in Ancient Egypt,” in Birds in Ancient Egypt, ed. Rozenn Bailleul-LeSuer, with new photography by Anna R. Ressman, Oriental Institute Museum Publications 35 (Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2012), 24. 28.  Smend, Weisheit, 112: “Das Tertium ist die Gefährlichkeit des scheinbar Harmlosen.”

C

-B

The Astonishing Zoo of Sirach 11:30

93

first glance, both seem harmless, but experience confirms the opposite. The birds entering the cage do not notice the danger29—nor does the person who unwittingly welcomes a malicious person into their home. When the guest is such a malfeasant, hospitality becomes dangerous for the householder. In other words, just as the captive bird in the cage serves as a trap for the other birds, so the hidden bad intentions of the malicious person are a trap for the host. Wolf: A Lethal Attack In 30b, the image of the bird is replaced by that of the wolf. The malicious person is now compared to a wolf (‫זאב‬, canis lupus), a predatory animal frequently mentioned in the Old Testament as emblematic of treachery and cruelty. In Gen 49:27, Benjamin is likened to a ravenous wolf. In Ezek 22:27, the princes of Jerusalem are compared to wolves ripping apart their prey, “shedding blood, and destroying lives” for the sake of unjust gain (cf. Zeph 3:3). In Jer 5:6, it is a wolf that will destroy the leaders of Jerusalem, and in Hab 1:8, the horses of the Chaldeans “are swifter than leopards, and keener than the evening wolves.” The ferocity of the wolf is well described in the phrase ‫א ֵֹרב לטרף‬. The verb ‫ ארב‬means “to lie in wait,” a common strategy among predatory animals before pouncing on their prey.30 Ben Sira employs the verb three times, twice in v. 30 (30b and 30g referred to the peddler) and once in 8:11, with the meaning “to ambush”: “Don’t give ground to a scoundrel, to prevent him from setting traps for you.” The finality of ‫ ארב‬is indicated by the preposition ‫ טרף‬+ ‫ל‬. The basic meaning of ‫ טרף‬is “tear (to pieces)” especially with beasts of prey as the subject.31 A good example is Jer 5:6, where the prophet announces punishment for the “great” of Jerusalem: Therefore a lion from the forest will attack them, a wolf from the desert will ravage them, a leopard will lie in wait (‫ )ארב‬near their towns to tear to pieces (‫ )טרף‬any who venture out, for their rebellion is great and their backslidings many. (NIV) 29.  Cf. Tova L. Forti, “Even the Sparrow Has Found a Home (Ps 84:4): From Uprooting and Wandering to Safety and Intimacy,” in Networks of Metaphors in the Hebrew Bible, ed. Danilo Verde and Antje Labahn, BETL 309 (Leuven: Peeters, 2020), 233–43. 30.  Besides the preying of beasts, in the Bible it is said of warriors, bandits, robbers, criminals and harlots. 31.  Siegfried Wagner, “‫ט ַרף‬, ָ ṭārap,” TDOT 5:351.

94

Human Interaction with the Natural World

As Lévi rightly noted,32 the comparison of the wicked to a wolf does not cohere well with the previous simile: the malicious person who takes advantage of the host’s hospitality is both a bird used as a decoy and a wolf stalking its prey with deadly intent. Despite the incongruity in imagery, the message of Ben Sira is unequivocal: the mischievous are always dangerous, especially if they break into your house; they may entangle you so that you fall into their trap and may even violently attack you and your family members or vandalize your home. For this reason, the sage advises not letting them cross the threshold of your door. Once they are inside, the damage is inevitable. Dog: Devastating Damage The stranger welcomed by the householder might also be a swindler (‫)בוצע‬,33 a person with no scruples that uses deception (‫רבו פשעי‬, “many scams,” 11:30c) to take money or possessions. The swindler is greedy for illicit gain and will do anything to achieve material profit. His victims are not only the people he is able to cheat but also his own family (Prov 15:27) and ultimately himself, as his greed will lead him to death (Prov 1:19). The psalmist identifies him with the wicked who boasts of his soul’s desire and states, “The greedy (‫ )ב ֵֹצ ַע‬blesses himself” (Ps 10:3). In the four cola devoted to the swindler in v. 30 (c,d,e,f), he is compared to a dog (‫)כלב‬.34 In the Old Testament, the term ‫( כלב‬κύων) designates the wild dogs which roam in groups (Ps 22:17) through the city (Ps 59:7, 15) or outside the city walls in search of rubbish and corpses (1 Kgs 14:11; 16:4), as well as the domesticated dog used in herding (Job 30:1) and the watchdog (Isa 56:10). In the Bible, the dog frequently carries negative connotations (Exod 22:30; Deut 23:19; 1 Sam 17:43; 2 Sam 3:8; 2 Kgs 8:13; Prov 26:11; Qoh 9:4), especially when dead (1 Sam 24:15; 2 Sam 9:8; 16:9).35 In Sirach, the dog is also mentioned in 4:30 MS A (“Do not be like a dog in your home”) within a series of negative precepts.36 In our text the dog is depicted as an extremely aggressive animal that invades a house, throwing everything into turmoil (“devouring a house,” 32.  Lévi, L’Ecclésiastique, 82. 33.  From the verb ‫בצע‬, “cut off, break off, gain by violence, profit.” 34.  Some authors (Lévi, Smend, Alonso Schökel, Morla Asensio) mention a possible connection or confusion between ‫“( ֶכּ ֶלב‬dog”) and ‫“( ְכּלוּב‬cage”). 35.  Oded Borowski, Every Living Thing: Daily Use of Animals in Ancient Israel (Walnut Creek: Altamira, 1998), 135; Forti, Animal Imagery, 93–4. 36.  The dog is mentioned also in Syr., while Gr. and Lat. instead follow the reading of MS C, where the dog becomes a lion. Cf. Calduch-Benages, “Animal Imagery,” 56–7.

C

-B

The Astonishing Zoo of Sirach 11:30

95

‫)באוכל בית‬. Such a violent image recalls the tragic destiny of Jezebel who died by being devoured (‫ )אכל‬by stray dogs (2 Kgs 9:10, 35–36) and Jer 15:3 where the Lord announces four kinds of destroyers against the leaders of the people: besides “the sword to slay, the birds of the heavens and the wild animals to devour and destroy,” he will send against them “the dogs to drag about” (‫לסחֹב‬ ְ ‫ת־ה ְכּ ָל ִבים‬ ַ ‫)וְ ֶא‬. By way of comparison, the swindler is also depicted as a violent person. The verb ‫—חמס‬which we have translated by “causing damage” in view of the context—actually means “to act or treat violently.” When the swindler enters a house, he brings not only violence and destruction but also strife with him: “he contends for (‫ )משים ריב‬all their goods” (“their” referring to the householder and his family). Once inside, the house will fall in disgrace. Bear: Stalking the Prey In 11:30g the peddler reappears (cf. 29b), albeit depicted differently. This time, he is not compared to a bird but to a bear (‫)דוב‬. The bear (Ursus syriacus) is frequently mentioned in the Old Testament.37 Greatly dreaded for its ferocity and destructive instincts, it is considered the most dangerous animal next to the lion (Amos 5:11; Dan 7:5). It usually attacks livestock, especially sheep, when hungry (cf. 1 Sam 17:34–36), but rarely people (2 Kgs 2:24). When deprived of its cubs, it becomes extremely ferocious (2 Sam 17:8; Prov 17:12; Hos 13:8; cf. Isa 11:7). It is compared to the wicked ruler (Prov 28:15), and its distinct growl is like the cries of the sinful people (Isa 59:11). In Sirach, the bear appears twice. In the first instance, the wicked woman is compared to a bear: “The wickedness of a woman makes her appearance somber and turns her face hostile like that of a bear” (26:17 MS C);38 in the second, David is described as a kind of superhero who does not fear the fiercest animals: “He played with young lions as one would play with the kids of the goats and with bears like the calves of Bashan” (47:3 MS B). Our text refers neither to the roar nor to the attack of the bear but to the action of stalking (‫)ארב‬, which is characteristic of predators, as we have already seen in speaking of wolves. In Lam 3:10, such action is attributed to God, whom the singer describes as “a bear lying in wait” 37.  Borowski, Every Living Thing, 201–2; Forti, Animal Imagery, 62–3. 38.  Nuria Calduch-Benages, “ ‘Pillars of gold on plinths of silver…’ (Sir 26,18). Female Body Imagery in Ben Sira,” in Understanding Texts in Early Judaism: Studies on Biblical, Qumranic, Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature to the Memory of Géza G. Xeravits, ed. József Zsengellér, DCLS 48 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2022), 265–81.

96

Human Interaction with the Natural World

(‫)דּ ֹב א ֵֹרב‬. Just as the bear stalks the prey, the peddler stalks the scorners’ house. Hiding like a spy (‫)כמרגל‬, he observes (‫ )יראה‬the house carefully and cautiously, examining its unguarded parts (‫ )ערוה‬so that he may later enter it without difficulty.39 Why the scorners’ house (‫ ?)בית לצים‬Since the text is lacking in the versions, it is difficult to find an explanation for this choice. The term ‫( ֵלץ‬from ‫ליץ‬,ִ “to scorn”), very common in Proverbs and Sirach, has strongly negative connotations. It designates a stubborn, impudent (Prov 1:22; 9:7; 13:1; 15:2; Sir 3:28), quarrelsome (Prov 22:10; Sir 31:26), scheming (Sir 8:11), contagious, scandalous (Sir 13:1) and chatty person (Sir 32:18). As some scholars have noted,40 ‫לצים‬ does not match the context. In any case, and regardless of which house is involved, by comparing the peddler with a bear lying in wait for the prey, Ben Sira seeks to convince the disciple of how dangerous this social category can be. Conclusion The teaching of Ben Sira in 11:29–34 is a call for caution because, as we have seen, he is convinced that being hospitable to a stranger can be very dangerous. For many authors,41 behind the figure of the stranger (v. 29) and especially the foreigner (‫זָ ִריו‬, ἀλλότριον, v. 34),42 the conflict between Judaism and Hellenism in second-century Palestine can be glimpsed. It is probable that Ben Sira has in mind the Jews of the Diaspora as well. He wants to warn the Jews not to trust any stranger and be careful with their contacts with foreigners, that is, pagans or Hellenized Jews who have abandoned their faith. Foreigners pose a threat to pious Jews, being 39.  Box and Oesterley comment: “A base and unscrupulous person, if admitted to intimacy, will use his opportunities of intimate knowledge merely for malicious purposes” (“The Book of Sirach,” 358). 40.  Lévi, L’Ecclésiastique, 82; Rey, “Si 10,12–12,1: Nouvelle édition,” 602. 41.  Duesberg and Fransen, Ecclesiastico, 145; Skehan and Di Lella, Wisdom, 246; Josef Schreiner, Jesus Sirach 1–24, NEchtB 38 (Würzburg: Echter, 2002), 73; Mopsik, La Sagesse de Ben Sira, 140; Johannes Marböck, Jesus Sirach 1–23, HThKAT (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2010), 169; Friedrich V. Reiterer, “Der Fremde bei Ben Sira. Die Spannungen zwischen der spätalttestamentlichen und hellenistischen Weltauffassung,” in The Stranger in Ancient and Mediaeval Jewish Tradition, ed. Géza G. Xeravits and Jan Dušek, DCLS 4 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010), 80–1; Maria Carmela Palmisano, Siracide. Introduzione, traduzione e commento, NVBTA 34 (Cinisello Balsamo, Milano: San Paolo, 2016), 134. 42.  The Hebrew term should be corrected in ‫ צר‬or ‫צרים‬. Cf. Rey, “Si 10,12–12,1: Nouvelle édition,” 603.

C

-B

The Astonishing Zoo of Sirach 11:30

97

able to impose ways of life and beliefs that would eventually make them strangers to their own people (cf. Ps 69:9). As Alonso Schökel puts it, “the religion and the customs of the homeland and also the unity and cohesion of the people are in danger.”43 Without dwelling on this issue, I have focused our attention on the animal imagery in Sir 11:30. In this verse the sage uses four animals—a bird, a wolf, a dog and a bear—to illustrate the behavior of the stranger, characterized as peddler (gossiper/slanderer), arrogant (malicious), swindler and spy, that is, as a dangerous person of whom to beware. The decoy bird used to catch other birds evokes the behavior of the malicious one who acts with covert intent to benefit something or harm someone. The wolf stalking the prey before its lethal attack is another image— extremely violent—that Ben Sira applies to the malicious person. The dog that rampages through everything with uncontrolled violence alludes to the behavior of the swindler who, with his frauds, causes devastating damage to his victims. The bear on the prowl symbolizes the behavior of the peddler who takes advantage of his visits to prospective buyers to carefully inspect their homes, with the intention of stealing later. All these images show, from one side, that human beings can act like animals, even like predators, and, from the other, that they can be the targets of such actions as well. As in other parts of the book,44 Ben Sira does not use this kind of imagery as a discourse embellishment but as a very effective pedagogical strategy to impact his disciples. In this respect, Tova Forti states: “The encounter between man and animal stimulates the listener-reader to reflect on and assimilate the teacher’s lesson.”45 At the same time, zoological imagery is an open window that allows us to better understand the environment in which the sage and his students lived. In conclusion, our “astonishing zoo” has proven to be a very useful and effective educational tool in wisdom teaching.

43.  Alonso Schökel, Proverbios y Eclesiástico, 184: “Está en peligro la religión y costumbres patrias y también la unidad y cohesión del pueblo.” 44.  Cf. Calduch-Benages, “Animal Imagery.” 45.  Forti, Animal Imagery, 135.

Chapter 8

C

A H

B

A *

Yael Shemesh

Introduction The animals with whom we share the world have fascinated the human race since the dawn of human history, as can be learned from the cave paintings, quite a few of which document animals.1 The same is true of the material arts of ancient peoples, which include paintings, jewelry, and sculptures on which animals are aptly represented.2 The extent to which the animals fascinated people in the biblical period can also be learned from the story about King Solomon, who is considered the wisest among people: “And he spoke three thousand proverbs; and his poems were a thousand and five… [H]e spoke also of beasts and of birds and of creeping things and of fishes” (1 Kgs 5:12–13).3 My purpose in this essay is to outline the Hebrew Bible’s complex attitude toward animals, which includes both reluctance and fascination, and exploitation alongside manifestations of consideration and compassion.

.(11 ‫טוֹבה ָח ְכ ָמה ִמ ְפּנִ ינִ ים וְ ָכל ֲח ָפ ִצים לֹא יִ ְשׁווּ ָבהּ" )מש' ח‬ ָ ‫"כּי‬ ִ  * ‫ באיחולים טובים שיקוים בך‬,‫ טובה‬,‫המאמר מוקדש באהבה לחברתי טובת השכל ונדיבת הלב‬ .(9 ‫ "טוֹב ַעיִ ן הוּא יְ ב ָֹרְך" )מש' כב‬:‫הכתוב‬ 1.  For examples of cave paintings of animals, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Cave_painting. 2.  See the various studies on this issue in A History of the Animal World in the Ancient Near East, ed. Billie Jean Collins (Leiden: Brill, 2002). 3.  Translations of biblical verses rely on the English Standard Version. Sometimes, slight alterations are made in order to fit the citation to my own understanding of the Scriptures.

102

Human Interaction with the Natural World

Similar and Different: The Complex Status of Animals in the Two Creation Stories Already in Genesis 1 we meet the animals and are informed about the connection between them and God. The following positive data emerge from this chapter with regard to animals: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Animals are God’s creatures (vv. 20, 24, 25). The animals in the sea and in the sky receive a blessing from God (v. 22). God expresses His satisfaction with the creation of the animals: “And God saw that it was good” (vv. 21, 25). Animals are called “a living soul,” similarly to humans, but unlike the plants, which have no souls (vv. 20, 24). The animals on land and the first humans were created on the same day—on the sixth day of creation (vv. 24–27), which indicates the closeness between them.

On the other hand, from the first creation story it is clear that humans, created last, enjoy a special status compared to other animals. Only they were created in the image of God. The creation of the first humans is described in a solemn and poetic style (v. 27). Moreover, God speaks to them directly and grants them rule over the animals (vv. 26–28). This creates a likeness between humans and God: just as God rules over humans (and all creatures), so humans rule over the animals.4 It is not explained why the animals were created. The assumption that they were created solely for the purpose of humans can be refuted on the account that most types of animals are not beneficial to human beings, and some of them are even harmful to them. Moreover, according to Genesis 1, the first human beings were not even supposed to feed themselves on animals, but on a plant diet. This seems to express the biblical ideal: “And God said: ‘Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food’ ” (1:29).5

4.  See, e.g., Hannah M. Strømmen, Biblical Animality After Jacques Derrida (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2018), 41. 5.  On vegetarian ideology in the Bible, see Gary A. Rendsburg, “The Vegetarian Ideal in the Bible,” in Food and Judaism: A Special Issue of Studies in Jewish Civilization, vol. 15, ed. Leonard J. Greenspoon, Ronald M. Simkins and Gerald Shapiro (Omaha: Creighton University Press, 2005), 319–34.

S

Complex Attitudes towards Animals in the Hebrew Bible

103

From Genesis 2 it indeed appears that the animals were created for the purpose of the man—to redeem him from his loneliness. This is the picture that emerges from the order of the Scriptures. After God recognizes that “it is not good that the man should be alone” and therefore decides “I will make him a helper fit for him” (2:18), one could expect a description of the creation of the woman. But instead, immediately afterwards, the creation of the animals and the interaction between them and the man at the initiative of God is surprisingly narrated: Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. (Gen 2:19–20)

The impression emerging from this description is that the animals were created in order to alleviate the man’s loneliness by creating “a helper fit for him.” A talmudic saying brought in the name of R. Elazar even goes so far as to say that the first man had intercourse with all the animals but remained unsatisfied: “And Rabbi Elazar said: What is the meaning of that which is written: ‘This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh’ (Gen 2:23)? This teaches that Adam had intercourse with each animal and beast, but his mind was not at ease until he had intercourse with Eve” (b. Yeb. 63a). In other words, the attempt to find a helper for the man among the animals failed. Nevertheless, the first interaction that the man creates according to the book of Genesis is with the animals. He gave them names. This action, as many have noticed, establishes his rule over them,6 but it may also express intimacy and closeness, inasmuch as giving someone a name requires acquaintance with his or her nature. The Serpent and the Woman (Genesis 3)— Establishing Relations and the Beginning of Corruption It is worth noting that the first dialogue in the Hebrew Bible takes place between a human being, Eve, and a non-human being, the serpent, and it was initiated by the serpent. Some suggest that the serpent represents 6.  See, e.g., Allan P. Ros, “‫שם‬,” ֵ in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, vol. 4, ed. Willem A. VanGemeren (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), 147–51 (147).

104

Human Interaction with the Natural World

Eve’s inner voice.7 Others suggest this also concerning Balaam’s donkey.8 Even if we accept this suggestion, the possibility of animals representing the inner voice of a human beings indicates that there are close affinities between animals and humans. The punishment for the human sin that was provoked by the serpent includes corruption of the relationship between men and women as well as of the relationship between the human race and the animals: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel” (Gen 3:15). It is interesting, however, that there is a dimension of equality to this hostile relationship: the two sides will both hurt each other and be hurt by each other. It should be noted that in the harmonious description of the apocalyptic vision in the prophecy of Isaiah 11, the relationship between the human race and the animals will be restored, as is clear from the following pastoral description, which not accidentally mentions serpents: “The nursing child shall play over the hole of the cobra, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder’s den” (Isa 11:8). With the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden, it is said that God made them ‫כּ ְתנוֹת עוֹר‬, ָ “skin garments,” and clothed them (Gen 3:21). According to Targum Jonathan, the reference is to garments made of a serpent’s skin. But even without accepting this midrashic supplement, and assuming that the reference is to garments of animal skin,9 the mention of this fact may possibly imply a disharmony created in human– animal relations. After the Flood—Continued Corruption and Permission to Eat Animals After the Flood, and after Noah’s display of concern for every living creature (whether it benefits humans or not) before and during the Flood, 7.  See, e.g., Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, translated from the Hebrew by Israel Abrahams, Part I: From Adam to Noah (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1998), 142; Yitzhak Lev-Ran, “Narrative Modes for Presenting Complexity of Inner Life of Biblical Characters” (PhD diss., Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 2009 [Hebrew]), 148–54; Avi Dentelski, “ ‘Adam Uḇehema’: Domestic Beasts as Human’s Representation in the Hebrew Bible” (Ph.D. diss., Ariel: Ariel University, 2017 [Hebrew]), 11, 146, 148–52. 8.  Dentelski, “Domestic Beasts,” 11, 146, 148, 159–62. 9.  Another view is that this expression refers to garments meant to cover the skin. See Midrash Aggadah (Buber), Gen 3:21; Pesikta Zutrata (Lekach Tov), Gen 3:21.

S

Complex Attitudes towards Animals in the Hebrew Bible

105

as he was commanded by God, human–animal relations deteriorated further when humans were given permission to eat the animals: “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything” (Gen 9:3). This permission, though, is qualified by the prohibition against eating blood (v. 4), which is meant to remind us that it is disgraceful to take the lives of living beings.10 The permission to eat meat seems to be part of the estrangement from the ideal world in the Garden of Eden, much like the corruption of the relationship between the man and the woman and the rule given to the man over the woman in the wake of the sin.11 The Torah seems to be aware of the dangers inherent in this state of affairs: eating animals may lead to killing humans. Hence, immediately after the permission to eat the flesh of animals, the following warning appears: “And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from every human being. From his fellow human being I will require a reckoning for the life of another human being” (9:5). It should be noted that this was not a one-way relationship of one part eating and the other part being eaten. People in the biblical period themselves feared ending their lives as food for prey animals (Gen 37:33; Lev 26:6; 2 Kgs 17:25; Prov 26:13) or being eaten by the birds of the air and the beasts of the earth/field after their death (Deut 28:26; 1 Sam 17:46; etc.). They were also painfully aware of the fact that after their death they would end up being eaten by maggots and worms (Isa 14:11). Human Exploitation of Animals The Hebrew Bible describes human exploitation of animals for both personal and ritual needs. By personal needs is meant eating, which, as stated in the book of Genesis, was allowed immediately after the flood,12

10.  See also Deut 12:23–25, and in particular the commandment to cover the blood in Lev 17:13–14. 11.  See Phyllis Trible, “Depatriarchalizing in Biblical Interpretation,” JAAR 41 (1973): 30–48 (41), who stressed that the corruption of the relationship between men and women following their sin was not part of God’s original intention. One might claim the same with regard to the relationship between humans and animals. 12.  See, e.g., the description of the dishes served at the table of Solomon every day: “Ten fat oxen, and twenty pasture-fed cattle, a hundred sheep, besides deer, gazelles, roebucks, and fattened fowl” (1 Kgs 5:3).

106

Human Interaction with the Natural World

along with clothing,13 and the use of riding14 and working animals.15 But beyond these needs, which were certainly perceived as essential in biblical times, we also find the exploitation of animals for luxury, such as in the time of King Solomon and at his initiative: “For the king had a fleet of ships of Tarshish at sea with the fleet of Hiram. Once every three years the fleet of ships of Tarshish used to come bringing gold, silver, ivory, apes, and peacocks” (1 Kgs 10:22). About Solomon it is also related that he made “a great ivory throne” (v. 18). Evidence of capturing birds for amusement or entertainment also emerges from God’s rhetorical question to Job about the Leviathan: “Will you play with him as with a bird, or will you put him on a leash for your girls?” (Job 40:29). The exploitation of animals for ritual purposes touches mainly upon the bringing of sacrifices. The first sacrifices in the Hebrew Bible are described as spontaneous sacrifices, the result of human initiative. This is the case both with regard to Cain’s offering of the fruit of the ground (Gen 4:3) and the animal offering of Abel (Gen 4:4). Very disappointingly, from a vegetarian point of view, it was the second sacrifice that was accepted. Also, the sacrifice of Noah after the flood and after having left the ark (Gen 8:20) was a spontaneous act initiated by Noah himself. Later on, the cult of sacrifice became established through meticulous and detailed laws (see mainly the book of Leviticus), but here is not the place to discuss whether the biblical God originally intended this type of worship,16 or whether it was a concession to human nature and humans’ need to offer sacrifices.17 Closeness Between Humans and Animals Paradoxically, the sacrifice of animals actually indicates the closeness between them and humans because the sacrificed animal actually represents 13.  See, e.g., the descriptions of Elijah in 2 Kgs 1:8 and of the prophets as wearing hairy cloaks in Zech 13:4. 14.  Gen 24:64; Num 22:30; Josh 15:18; Judg 10:4; and more. From the latter source we learn that donkeys, as riding beasts, might also have served as a status symbol. 15.  For example, Elisha is described as plowing the land using twelve pairs of oxen (1 Kgs 19:19). 16.  See the commentary of Nachmanides on Lev 1:9. 17.  As held by Midrash Vayikra Rabbah (Vilna), Acharei Mot 22; Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed, part 3, chs. 32, 46. The prophetic morality is sometimes found to oppose the sacrificial cult. See, e.g., Isa 1:11; Jer 7:21–23; Hos 6:6; Mic 6:6–8. The view that God does not desire offerings is also reflected in Ps 40:7.

S

Complex Attitudes towards Animals in the Hebrew Bible

107

the person who brings the sacrifice. Someone bringing an offering must internalize that what happened to the animal was supposed to happen to him or herself.18 Both humans and non-human animals are called “all flesh” (Gen 6:12; 9:17; and more), which in fact indicates the closeness between them. Beyond the features common to all living creatures, one can sometimes find in the Hebrew Bible a blurring of the distinction between humans and non-human animals19 from two different perspectives: descriptions of humans as having animal traits, on the one hand, and descriptions of animals as having human traits, on the other. The first group includes Ishmael, who, while still in his mother’s womb, was characterized by the angel as one who would become like a wild donkey, that is, a free animal: “He shall be a wild donkey of a man” (Gen 16:12); the hairy Esau (Gen 25:25; 27:16); and Nebuchadnezzar, who, after losing his mind, was expelled from the company of human beings and became like a beast of the field (Dan 4:30). According to Strømmen, also, Noah’s nudity obscures the difference between him and the animals.20 The grotesque description of the Egyptians in the prophecy of Ezekiel, too, likens the Egyptians to donkeys and horses: “She lusted after her lovers there, whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose issue was like that of horses” (Ezek 23:20). On the other hand, a reverse trend of attributing human traits to animals also exists. This is clearly expressed in the descriptions of the serpent (Gen 3) and the donkey of Balaam (Num 28) as conducting conversations with human beings. The personification of animals is also found in their presentation as asking God to feed them, as, for example, in the words of the psalmist: “The young lions roar for their prey, seeking their food from God” (Ps 104:21). The closeness between humans and animals is also expressed in the fact that the most common secular names (that is, non-theophoric names void of religious significance) in the Hebrew Bible are names of animals.21 18.  See the commentary of Nachmanides on Lev 1:9. On domestic animals as representing humans (not only in the laws of sacrifices, and not only kosher animals), see Dentelski, “Domestic Beasts.” 19.  See the discussion of Ken Stone, Reading the Hebrew Bible with Animal Studies (Stanford: Stanford University Press), 34–44, following the discussion of Jacques Derrida, The Animal That Therefore I Am, trans. David Willis (New York: Fordham University Press, 2008). 20.  Strømmen, Biblical Animality, 39. 21.  Bezalel Porten, “Name, Proper Nouns in Israel,” Encyclopedia Biblica 8 (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1982), 33–51 (42), and see there for a list of these names.

108

Human Interaction with the Natural World

Also, descriptions of humans in the likeness of animals are very prevalent in biblical literature. For example, in the blessings of Jacob (Gen 49), five of his sons are likened to animals: Judah is likened to a lion (v. 9), Issachar to a donkey (v. 14), Dan to a serpent (v. 17), Naphtali to a doe (v. 21), and Benjamin to a wolf (v. 27). Also, the lovers in the Song of Songs liken each other to animals: the man likens the woman to a noble mare (Song 1:9) and a dove (Song 2:14; 6:9), while the woman likens the man to a gazelle or a young stag (Song 2:9, 17; 8:14). On the other hand, there is also the negative image of the small foxes that spoil the vineyards (Song 2:15). Also the wisdom literature uses many—both positive and negative— images of animals. These have been discussed in depth in Tova Forti’s book.22 The poets of the book of Psalms also use animal images, both to describe the enemies (e.g. Ps 22:17) and for self-characterization: “like a lone bird on a roof” (Ps 102:8), from which is taken the title of Forti’s book about animal images in the book of Psalms.23 I think that in this image, like in the image expressed in the verse “we have escaped like a bird from the snare of the fowlers; the snare is broken, and we have escaped” (Ps 124:7), empathy can be discerned on the part of the psalmists towards the birds. The authors of the Hebrew Bible reveal an intimate acquaintance with animals,24 which sometimes leads them to express admiration for their traits (e.g., the praise of the ant’s diligence in Prov 6:6–8). Their gaze was so sharp that, in my understanding, and as I have suggested in a previous study, the prophet Isaiah (31:5) hints at the deception of many ground-nesting birds who use the technique of “distraction display.” They pretend to be limping in order to keep potential enemies away from their nest, and only after they succeed in doing this, they cease limping and fly away!25 Beyond literary images, even when it comes to the practice of daily life, it is important to make clear that in biblical times, humans were not alienated from the animals, as is the case today with the animals that humans consume and exploit for their own needs without any physical and emotional connection between person and “product.” In biblical 22.  Tova L. Forti, Animal Imagery in the Book of Proverbs (Leiden: Brill, 2000). 23.  Tova L. Forti, “Like a Lone Bird on a Roof”: Animal Imagery and the Structure of Psalms (University Park: Eisenbrauns, 2018). 24.  See also Forti, Like a Lone Bird, 4 on the psalmists’ knowledge of the animal world. 25.  Yael Shemesh, “Isaiah 31,5: The Lord’s Protecting Lameness,” ZAW 115 (2003): 256–60.

S

Complex Attitudes towards Animals in the Hebrew Bible

109

times animals were part of the household. There seem to have been cases in which even animals that today are considered farm animals were perceived as pets, as may be inferred from the parable of the poor man’s lamb, in which the prophet Nathan describes the relationship between the poor man and his lamb as a father–daughter relationship (2 Sam 12:3). This is admittedly only a parable, but the fact that the description did not arouse David’s suspicion shows that such a relationship was possible in biblical times.26 The words of the book of Proverbs, “a righteous man has regard for the soul of his beast” (Prov 12:10), reflect empathy toward farm animals,27 in stark contrast to the alienation characterizing the animal food industries today. The image of God as a shepherd caring for the individual (Ps 23:1–2) and for the entire people of Israel (Isa 40:11; Pss 79:13; 80:2; 95:7; and more) teaches that the ideal shepherd was expected to work for the safety and well-being of the animals under his care.28 Concern for Animals in Biblical Law Various scriptures indicate that animals were perceived as part of the community, and that biblical law protects certain of their rights. As Idan Breier pointed out, this is an innovation of the Hebrew Bible compared to the laws of the ancient Near East, in which no protection of animals can be found and animals are treated solely as property.29 I will dwell a little on three of the biblical laws that reflect concern for the physical and emotional needs of farm animals in human possession: (1)

“If you see the donkey of one who hates you lying down under its burden, you shall refrain from leaving him with it; you shall rescue it with him” (Exod 23:5). The commandment to unload, usually used as evidence for the claim that easing animal suffering is a

26.  See more about this in my study “Compassion for Animals in Biblical Stories,” in The Shamir, the Letters, the Writing, and the Tablets (Mishnah Avot 5:6): Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East, Postbiblical Literature, Ancient Languages, and Ancient Cultures in Honor of Professor Shamir Yona, ed. Eliyahu Assis et al. (Jerusalem: Ostracon, forthcoming), and see there for additional expressions of human and divine compassion toward animals in biblical narrative. 27.  See, e.g., Forti, Like a Lone Bird, 23. 28.  Stone, Reading, 87, noticed the double role of human beings: on the one hand they are likened to God in their rule over the animals, and on the other hand they are likened to domesticated animals, the flock of God. 29.  Idan Breier, “Animals in Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Law: Tort and Ethical Laws,” Journal of Animal Ethics 8 (2018): 166–81.

110

(2)

(3)

Human Interaction with the Natural World

biblical imperative, teaches that not only must humans not grieve animals, but they must also not ignore their suffering even when they themselves have not caused it. In Israel, the “you shall not stand idly by the blood of another” law was passed in 1998. This law, which is part of the criminal law, obligates one to extend help to anyone needing it. The injunction to help unload the animal suffering under its burden seems, in principle, to express the same idea, though it is unrelated to criminal law. “Six days you shall do your work, but on the seventh day you shall rest; that your ox and your donkey may have rest, and the son of your servant woman, and the alien, may be refreshed” (Exod 23:12). In this reason given for observing the Sabbath, the animals are perceived as part of the community, as one of the weaker elements in society like the son of the maidservant and the immigrant, where the law protects their right to a day of rest. Above, we saw the law’s concern for the physical well-being of animals, and here this concern is combined with one for their mental well-being as well. “You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain” (Deut 25:4). This law seems to reflect a conception of rights similar to those of a human worker. The bull works hard and has the right to eat during the work even if this entails a certain financial loss to its owner. This conception seems to be so revolutionary that in the New Testament, in 1 Cor 9:9, a rhetorical question is asked: “Is it for oxen that God is concerned?” The answer given is that these words were written allegorically for our sake, and their meaning is that someone plowing shall plow in hope and someone threshing shall thresh in the hope of participating in the harvest. However, according to the literal meaning of the Torah it must be said that, indeed, God certainly cares for the bulls too!30

This last point brings me to the final section of the study, which will briefly present the relationship between God and the animals beyond what is described in the first chapters of Genesis discussed at the beginning of the essay.

30.  On these and other laws, see also Chilkuri Vasantha Rao, Animal Rights and Animal Laws in the Bible (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 2013).

S

Complex Attitudes towards Animals in the Hebrew Bible

111

The Relationship between God and Animals Divine concern for animals is revealed in additional literary genres in the Hebrew Bible. I will bring a few examples. In biblical narrative, it is clearly expressed at the end of the book of Jonah in the words “many beasts” (Jon 4:11). God spared Nineveh not only because of the many people found in it, but also because of the many animals in it.31 In biblical poetry, the righteousness of God is linked to the fact that He saves both man and beast (Ps 36:7), and to His concern for all of His creatures, for whom He provides sustenance (Pss 145:15–16; 147:9). Psalm 104 reveals God’s concern for humans and animals alike, without any superiority of humans over the animals (in complete contrast to the anthropocentric picture that emerges from Ps 8). In the wisdom literature, God’s speeches out of the whirlwind in the book of Job present an even more radical picture: God cares for animals from which humans derive no benefit (Job 39:5–12; 40:15–32 [40:15–41:8]), and this without even revealing concern for human beings as individuals.32 Although God permitted eating animal meat after the flood, at the same time He also made a covenant with them (Gen 9:16–17).33 In many places in the Hebrew Bible, animals are described as God’s messengers. For example, in the book of Jonah, the big fish and the tiny worm are described as faithful agents, in contrast to the official divine messenger, Jonah (itself the name of an animal—‘dove’), who tries to escape his mission.34 Also, animals maintain a connection with God and turn to Him for requests for water or for food (Ps 104:21; Joel 1:20; Job 38:41).35 Moreover, various scriptures describe them as honoring or praising the Lord

31.  For a broad discussion of this, see Yael Shemesh, “ ‘And many beasts’ (Jonah 4:11): The Function and Status of Animals in the Book of Jonah,” JHS 10 (2010): 1–26. 32.  Stone, Reading, 133–34. See also Edward L. Greenstein, “In Job’s Face / Facing Job,” in The Labour of Reading: Desire, Alienation and Biblical Interpretation, ed. Fiona C. Black, Roland Boer, and Eric Runions (Atlanta: SBL, 1999), 301–17 (307–308). Greenstein, however, stresses God’s rule over nature rather than his concern for it. 33.  Strømmen, Biblical Animality, 40, noted the tension between these two facts. 34.  On animals as divine agents in the Bible, and particularly in the book of Jonah, see Shemesh, “And Many Beasts,” 5–17. 35.  See, e.g., Forti, Like a Lone Bird, 22.

112

Human Interaction with the Natural World

(Isa 43:20; Pss 145:10, 21; 148:10; and more).36 The entire creation, including “beasts and all livestock, creeping things and flying birds” (Ps 148: 10), unites in singing “praise the Lord.” Concluding Summary Animals appear already in the first chapter of the Hebrew Bible, and from their very first appearance their status is revealed to be complex. The Hebrew Bible describes human beings as ruling over the animals and exploiting them, and sometimes hostile relations exist between humans and different types of animals. However, the Hebrew Bible also requires ethical behavior towards animals, describes the closeness between them and humans, and sometimes blurs the boundaries between human beings and non-human animals. Alongside the anthropocentric approach, there is in the Hebrew Bible also a theocentric approach according to which animals have an independent purpose of existence and maintain firm ties with God. God has mercy on them and provides for their needs regardless of whether they are beneficial to man or not. They, on their part, turn to Him in their distress and praise Him for His greatness and for His great benevolence toward them.

36.  For a broad discussion of this, see Peter Joshua Atkins, “Praise by Animals in the Hebrew Bible,” JSOT 44 (2020): 500–513. He shows that also in the literatures of other peoples of the ancient Near East, the animals praise the gods. For example, in ancient Sumer the sun god Shamash is said to be praised by all living things (ibid., 503), and according to ancient Egyptian texts baboons worship the sun god and praise him (ibid., 504–5). Atkins does not consider this a literary trope but believes that this is indeed how animals were perceived in the ancient world.

Chapter 9

H

H N

W

S

S

*

Brittany N. Melton and Megan D. Alsene

“What is not obvious and yet is pervasive in the Song is the way it evokes a healed relationship between humanity and the natural world,” contends Ellen Davis.1 Though this theme is pervasive, critical engagement with it is scarce; thus, this essay aims to extend Davis’s work on the relationship between humanity and the natural world in Song of Songs.2 By analyzing the use of natural world imagery as a means of describing the lovers, it will be argued that the evocation of this analogous relationship is predicated upon a harmonious vision of humanity as co-creatures within the natural world rather than its set-apart subduer; or, in the words of Davis, the Song communicates humanity’s “sense of belonging to the created world rather than our egocentric mastery of it.”3 However, whereas Davis and others have treated the Song as a response to Genesis, we explore the relationship between humanity and the natural world within the Song itself. Therefore, while Davis describes the relationship as healed, *  This essay is written in honor of the work of Professor Tova Forti, particularly her significant contribution to illuminating animal imagery in the Hebrew Bible. 1.  Ellen Davis, “ ‘The One Whom My Soul Loves’: The Song of Songs,” in Getting Involved with God: Rediscovering the Old Testament (Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield, 2001), 65–88 (83). 2.  Definitions of key terms follow Hilary Marlow, Biblical Prophets and Contemporary Environmental Ethics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009). “Natural world” is preferable here, as “nature” tends to carry with it the foreign Platonic concept of a “divide between mind and matter” resulting in a functional and desacralizing view of the natural world, which is contrary to both Hebrew and indigenous thought (Marlow, Biblical Prophets, 7–8). 3.  Ellen F. Davis, “Romance of the Land in the Song of Songs,” Anglican Theological Review 80 (1998): 533–46 (545).

114

Human Interaction with the Natural World

we, instead, refer to the Song’s envisaging of a harmonious relationship between humanity and the natural world, emphasizing mutuality and interconnectedness.4 This description, as we seek to demonstrate, closely resembles the “Harmony Way” of Native theology.5 Indeed, a strong resonance between biblical and Native theologies of land was noted as early as the 1980s. Geoffrey Lilburne “rediscover[ed]… the wisdom of the indigenous people of Australia…[being] struck by the incredible strength of their bond to the land” and states that Native people “have something vital to say to the Christian community throughout the world.”6 Like Lilburne, we have sought the wisdom of Native people for their understanding of the natural world (of which land is one part).7 Native wisdom has retained something that Anglo-Westerners8 have largely lost sight of until recent years, namely the interdependence of humanity and the natural world. This oversight is easily discerned in the common usage of “creation” terminology. For Anglo-Westerners, 4.  Ronald A. Simkins contends three different “solutions” are offered by the Old Testament in response to “the human-relationship-to-nature problem”: humanity’s mastery over nature, humanity’s harmony with nature, and humanity’s subjugation to nature (Creator and Creation: Nature in the Worldview of Ancient Israel [Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994], 168, 171). We focus here only on the second of those relationships as represented in the Song. 5.  Coined by Randy S. Woodley, Shalom and the Community of Creation: An Indigenous Vision (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), xiii. See the definition and further discussion below. 6.  Geoffrey R. Lilburne, A Sense of Place: A Christian Theology of the Land (Nashville: Abingdon, 1989), 11, 35–36; see esp. Chapter 2: “The Centrality of Land in Aboriginal and Hebrew Religion” (35–54). Similarly, John Hart draws from “the American Indian understanding of our relationship with the earth” to produce a Catholic theology of land (The Spirit of the Earth: A Theology of the Land [New York: Paulist, 1984]). While Lilburne and Hart represent two different Christian traditions, the relationship of humanity to the natural world is a concern of import worldwide, for many Jewish, Muslim, and other faith communities alike. 7.  “Land” refers to a specific portion of geographical expanse in which a particular people or nation is placed and resides, while “Earth” refers to the whole environment which has been created and contains the land, the sea, and the air (Clara Sue Kidwell, Homer Noley, and George E. “Tink” Tinker, A Native American Theology [Maryknoll: Orbis, 2001], 128–29). “Natural world,” then, is inclusive of both land and earth, as well as flora and fauna. 8.  Native Americans and First Nations peoples in Canada have been overlooked in ecological conversations that simply criticize the perspective of “the West”; thus, we have utilized the term “Anglo-Western” to designate those voices which have typically been more dominant in theological conversations during modernity.

M

A

Harmony between Humanity

115

“creation” and “created world” are used to refer to “everything apart from humans.”9 In other words, the term “creation” has become a synonym for “the natural world,” “the earth,” and “non-human creation,” isolating humanity from the rest of creation. In contrast, Natives use “creation” to mean everything created by God—humans and non-humans alike. Thus, a resonance with Native theology and a dissonance with Anglo-Western theology are discernible in the Song as it depicts humanity enmeshed with the natural world. After a brief summary of scholarship, the Song will be analyzed with a careful eye toward its poetics, particularly how it communicates its message by means of natural world imagery. Two primary observations will be discussed: the shared creatureliness that is assumed in the metaphorization of the lovers and the shared creaturely space that is envisioned as their fitting place of lovemaking. Next, we will examine how these aspects are regarded in Native theology. We conclude by considering how a rich theology of God’s immanence informs Natives’ relationship to the natural world and what this means for interpreting the Song. Biblical Scholarship on the Natural World and Song of Songs In her work, Davis identifies three relationships which are healed in the Song—between man and woman, between human and nonhuman creation, and between humanity and God—which, she argues, correspond to the three ruptured relationships in Genesis 3.10 She continues by highlighting a need for close attention to the second of these relationships, between human and nonhuman creation, which has been largely unexplored in scholarship on the Song. While a few works, by Hendrik Viviers (2001), Carole Fontaine (2001), and Elaine James (2017), have begun to fill this gap, this area of study remains underdeveloped.11 Like Viviers and Fontaine, the methodology of this essay aligns with Norman Habel’s 9.  Marlow, Biblical Prophets, 7–8. 10.  Ellen Davis, Scripture, Culture, and Agriculture: An Agrarian Reading of the Bible (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 170. See also idem, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2000); idem, “Reading the Song Iconographically,” in Scrolls of Love: Ruth and the Song of Songs, ed. Peter S. Hawkins and Lesleigh Cushing Stahlberg (New York: Fordham University Press, 2006), 172–84. 11.  See nn. 13–15, below. In an exposition on the Old Testament’s view of nature, Jacques Trublet only once mentions the Song; he says “La communion avec la nature… atteint son sommet dans le Cantique des cantiques” (“Peut-on parler de nature dans l’Ancien Testament?,” Recherches de Science Religieuse 98 [2010]: 193–215 [211]).

116

Human Interaction with the Natural World

revised ecological hermeneutic, particularly the facet of “retrieval.” Habel explains that “Earth or members of Earth community may play a key role or be highly valued in the text, but because of the Western interpretive tradition we have inherited, this dimension of the text has been ignored or suppressed… These subjects play roles in the text that are more than mere scenery or secondary images.”12 However, rather than regarding attention to the natural world as something “radically contemporary,” we seek to establish that Native theology offers an ancient paradigm for the relationship between humanity and the natural world closer to the Song’s. Analyzing the Relationship between Humanity and the Natural World in the Song Though the Song is most conspicuously about the love between two people, it communicates through imaging a reality in which the lovers and the natural world mutually participate in this love. The lovers delight in the natural world, and the natural world delights in the lovers. Viviers entitles this “eco-delight,” without which the Song’s main thrust, spoken majestically through natural imagery, would be meaningless.13 To see this dynamic, it must be conceded that poetry is a “mode of constituting knowledge,”14 rather than mere metaphor. The way poetry works communicates something about a person’s or community’s perceived or imagined reality. The Song imagines a world in which the whole natural world is bursting forth with life and vitality. Man and woman, individual and community, humanity and the natural world, all harmonize together in the Song.15 Humanity is free to find its identity and home among the other 12.  Norman C. Habel, “Introducing Ecological Hermeneutics,” in Exploring Ecological Hermeneutics, ed. Norman C. Habel and Peter Trudinger, SBLSymS 46 (Atlanta: SBL, 2008), 1–8 (5). Habel also prefers the term “Earth” as Native theologians. 13.  Hendrik Viviers, “Eco-Delight in the Song of Songs,” in The Earth Story in Wisdom Traditions, ed. Norman C. Habel and Shirley Wurst (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001), 143–54 (143). 14.  Elaine T. James, Landscapes of the Song of Songs: Poetry and Place (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 2. 15.  The foxes (2:15) are the only potential exception to the Song’s harmonious relationship between humanity and the natural world. Carole R. Fontaine (“ ‘Go Forth into the Fields’: An Earth-Centered Reading of the Songs,” in The Earth Story in Wisdom Traditions, 126–42 [135]) and Viviers (“Eco-Delight,” 147) both provide helpful explanations as to why this is perhaps not an exception. Whatever the case, that the foxes stand out as different corroborates that the rest of the Song is notably

M

A

Harmony between Humanity

117

creatures; there is shared creatureliness and shared space throughout the Song. Humanity is, then, situated among and embedded in the natural world, rather than above or apart from it. Shared Creatureliness The Song communicates praise of the beloved through imagery of the natural world, as the lovers’ bodies are conjured and constructed from images and metaphors almost exclusively drawn from the natural world. As the lovers describe and praise the other, the boundaries between body and natural world are, as James writes, consistently blurred, “making us wonder where people end and the earth begins.”16 The image that emerges throughout these descriptions is not of a beautiful man or woman, but of a beautiful landscape, bursting with life, or a beautiful animal, majestic and awesome (esp. Song 2:10–12; 7:12–13).17 Davis similarly poses, “The body of the man and woman and the lush landscape fuse in our imaginations; they become at points interchangeable as objects of love… Certainly this ‘confusion’ between beloved person and land is uncommon, if not strange, from our Western perspective.”18 This manner of depiction and praise is, indeed, predicated on an assumption foreign to an Anglo-Western perspective. The assumption is that humans and animals are immanently analogous; or, as we argue, that there is a recognition of shared creatureliness which undergirds the rich imagery of the Song. Using natural imagery, especially animal imagery, to praise the beloved discloses a positive evaluation of the natural world through the images used to describe the other. The extolling of each other as being like a fruitful garden (4:8–5:1; 8:13–14), a majestic stag (2:8–10, 17; 8:13–14), or a noble mare (1:9) vicariously lauds these natural elements at the same time. In praising the beloved, each lover also praises the natural world, likening their human lover to various aspects of the praiseworthy natural

harmonious. The disharmonious relations between humans in Song 5:7 with the watchmen, and potentially with the Solomon figure if one reads the story as a love triangle, should also be noted. 16.  James, Landscapes, 20. 17.  Davis, “The One Whom My Soul Loves,” 84. 18.  Ibid. For more on the fusion of the lovers and landscape, see Christopher Meredith, Journeys in the Songscape: Space in the Song of Songs, Hebrew Bible Monographs 53 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2013); idem, “The Lattice and the Looking Glass: Gendered Space in Song of Songs 2:8–14,” JAAR 80 (2012): 365–86.

118

Human Interaction with the Natural World

world around them. Thus, the images of the natural world convey the awe that is perceived in the lover’s body. Moreover, the connections between human lover and the natural world are, in a sense, natural, aiding their potency. The Song intimates that humanness and animality resemble each other; there is positive commonality between the two. Throughout the Song, for example, the male lover is compared with a young stag (2:8–9). Since the animal and natural world descriptions are ones of praise, this shared creatureliness ultimately implicitly confers a high value on the natural world, which is in all its parts praiseworthy, just as the lovers in all their parts are praiseworthy (see esp. the waṣfs). For example, 4:1–2 (ESV) reads: …Your eyes are doves behind your veil. Your hair is like a flock of goats leaping down the slopes of Gilead. Your teeth are like a flock of shorn ewes that have come up from the washing, all of which bear twins, and not one among them has lost its young.

It is clear that the comparisons are not merely based on aesthetic qualities, but more broadly on an appreciation of the way animals function in the natural world. This estimation entails regarding animals at the same level with humanity, rather than far beneath and distanced from them. The Song assumes humanity’s fundamental likeness with the natural world, which is communicated through what Fontaine deems to be a “system of shifting, shared traits” that the lovers share with the natural world: “the boy is king and shepherd, gazelle and spice; the girl is garden and fountain, military tower and war horse. Both are trees, gazelles, doves, and fruited land.”19 To clarify, this shared creatureliness does not collapse any difference between humanity and the natural world. Ultimately, the man is not a stag and the woman is not a mare. Instead, the Song highlights what Davis has elsewhere noted to be a “family resemblance,” regarding the natural world as “a fellow creature.”20 As Viviers summarizes, the Song “poetically convinces us that we are made up of the same ‘fibre’ as the rest of the natural world, that we share in the natural world as co-creatures with flora and fauna alike”; the natural world is our

19.  Fontaine, “Go Forth,” 140. 20.  Davis, Scripture, Culture, and Agriculture, 2, 29.

M

A

Harmony between Humanity

119

“kin.”21 Kinship, mutuality, and interdependence require both similarity and difference. As kin, the material landscape, bursting forth with life, is inseparable from the people. The harmony envisioned by the Song between the two lovers corresponds to and intertwines with a harmony between humanity and the natural world. Fontaine writes, “These spirited harmonics interpenetrate, so that each sex is imaged in terms of nature, and nature serves as an emblem for the beloved other.”22 As each lover is appreciated and praised in the Song, so also the natural world is appreciated and praised as co-creature and kin. Shared Creaturely Space Not only is humanity shown in the Song to be co-creature with the natural world, but also humanity shares creaturely space with the natural world. The Song constantly features the natural world as the home of love-making; the vineyards (2:15; 7:12), gardens (4:16; 5:1; 6:2; 8:13), orchards (6:11), forests (1:16–17), and pastures (1:5–8) are frequently where the lovers invite their beloved to join them. Each calls to their lover to join in the springtime settings (2:10–15; 7:11–13), and the natural world is an active witness to their love. Not only the safe places, but also the seemingly unsafe, “wild” places—the wilderness (3:6–11), the craggy cliffs (4:7)—are portrayed as home for the lovers, or even as their “better” home.23 They are presented as safe in the natural world, sharing creaturely space with the other creatures. It is these places—the vineyards, the cliffs, the gardens—in which the couple finds safety and solace, familiarity and comfort, knowing and being known, family and friendship. Further, it is not just any place in which the lovers co-dwell with the rest of the natural world, but it is their place—the place to which they belong. Davis rightly notes that the images of the natural world are not just natural, but “geographical” and “historical.”24 While many have said that the Song is “exotic” in its natural imagery,25 it seems the opposite is the case. The Song is surprisingly localized in its references to the natural

21.  Viviers, “Eco-Delight,” 148. 22.  Fontaine, “Go Forth,” 140. 23.  Viviers, “Eco-Delight,” 146. 24.  Davis, “Romance of the Land,” 539, in conversation with Michael Fox, contra Robert Alter. James also notes that the Song’s landscapes are situated “geographically, nationalistically, and historically” (Landscapes, 4). 25.  E.g., J. Cheryl Exum, Song of Songs, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005), 90, 111, 174.

120

Human Interaction with the Natural World

world, locations as well as the flora and fauna within them. Every proper place name represented within the Song—from Kedar (1:5) in the south to Lebanon (3:9; 4:8, 11, 15; 5:15; 7:4) in the north, from Gilead (4:1; 6:4) in the east to Carmel (7:5) in the west—is located within the boundaries given for Solomon’s reign (1 Kgs 4:1–21). Likewise, nearly all the flora and fauna, with few exceptions, were local rather than exotic.26 The lovers’ co-inhabitants are the cedars (1:17; 5:15; 8:9), crocuses (2:1), cypresses (1:17), figs (2:13), grapes (2:13, 15; 7:12), mandrakes (7:13), myrrh (1:13; 3:6; 4:6, 14; 5:1, 5, 13), saffron (4:14), as well as the deer (2:7, 9, 17; 3:5; 8:14), doves (1:15; 2:14; 4:1; 5:2, 12; 6:9), foxes (2:15), gazelle (2:7, 8, 17; 3:5; 4:5; 7:3; 8:14), goats (4:1; 6:5), leopards (4:8), lions (4:8), and sheep (6:6). This is a particular land, in which they co-inhabit with the many other creatures, with which they are deeply familiar. Within this land their conditions are shared with co-creatures and co-dwellers. This is seen in the Song as it consistently enmeshes human flourishing and the flourishing of the natural world.27 As the spring blossoms open and the fragrance of fresh figs comes forth, they encourage the lovers to be fruitful (2:12–13). Due to the fruitfulness of the natural world, the lovers seem to have no material lack; “beside our doors are all choice fruits, new as well as old” (7:13). They enjoy the beauty and tastes of flora, for example, pasturing among the lilies (2:16; 6:3) and early mornings in the budding vineyards (7:12), as well as tasting, or recalling the taste of, honeycomb, wine, and milk (5:1). The bourgeoning of the natural world has a potent effect on the lovers, and even beyond themselves as they encourage others to enjoy such love (5:1). Humanity is just as materially situated in this world as other creatures, and it is through this rich “materiality” that the spirituality of the Song is communicated; in the words of Viviers, Earth is their home, their “paradise” and its inhabitants their kin. This is where they belong, their perfect “habitat”… They spontaneously and continuously “voice” their kinship with the Earth community, harmonizing with the voices of Nature… They share seeing, breathing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and touching along with Earth’s inhabitants, and become fully alive. Deep down in the mystical depths of the world of the Song, the ultimate good of the universe can be sensed.28

26.  See various entries, such as “Mandrake,” in The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible, vol. 4, ed. Merrill C. Tenney and Moisés Silva, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), 68–69. 27.  James, Landscapes, 151. 28.  Viviers, “Eco-Delight,” 153, 154.

M

A

Harmony between Humanity

121

Humanity and the natural world are in mutual harmony in the Song, as co-creatures whose flourishing is interdependent within shared creaturely space. Reading with the Text: A Native Theological Lens If we, as modern readers, feel offended by parts of our bodies (hair, teeth, etc.) being likened to sheep and goats (4:1–2; 6:5–6)29 or become anxious at the idea of being at home in a vast undeveloped wilderness (3:6–11), or if we find the fusion between person and natural world to sound strange, perhaps it is because we have insulated and alienated ourselves from the natural world the Song praises. Too often, Anglo-Western Judeo-Christian ideology emphasizes how humanity is “set apart” from or “above” the rest of “creation,” citing the earliest chapters of Genesis. Commenting on Psalm 148, Fretheim aptly writes, “[modern] readers are no doubt pleased to be listed among the angels in the call to praise God and perhaps not so thrilled to be included among creeping, crawling things and crab apple trees. Our anthropocentric sensibilities may be offended to be on the list with hills, horses, and hurricanes.”30 Similarly, the Song is likely to grate, since it is far more typical for English colloquialisms to voice comparisons with animals for negative qualities (e.g., “You lazy dog”). The assumed framework is not positive commonality, but predominately negative, as if one has not evolved quite as much as the rest of society. If, instead, the Song is read with the perspective of “[l]oving mutuality” and interdependence rather than separateness and independence, one is more apt to appreciate, and even perhaps experience, the harmonious

29.  Fontaine describes some of these images as appearing to the modern reader to be “nearly grotesque—or completely so to some critics” (“Go Forth,” 129). In a similar vein, Michael Fishbane encourages modern readers to “cultivate the… sensibilities of a shepherd’s heart” (Song of Songs, The JPS Bible Commentary [Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 2015], xxvi). 30.  Terence E. Fretheim, God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation (Nashville: Abingdon, 2005), 250. Fretheim explicates and criticizes extreme anthropocentrism and its attendant impulse toward desacralization of the natural world in theological interpretation, offering instead a higher value of the nonhuman and a recognition of the interconnectedness with humanity akin to Native theologians (ibid., 250–51). Marlow helpfully gives further clarification to Fretheim’s critique by offering the terms “instrumental” or “exploitatively anthropocentric,” as opposed to the ambiguous “anthropocentrism,” to refer to positions engendering an exploitation stance of humans toward the natural world (Biblical Prophets, 8).

122

Human Interaction with the Natural World

relationships envisioned in the Song.31 This “loving mutuality” is, indeed, the starting point for Native readers. The phrasing of Cheryl Bear’s translation of Song 1:9—“you remind me of a spirited young appaloosa / no fence can hold you”—serves as a modern demonstration of this.32 While there is not one universal Native culture, it has been rightly noted that indigenous peoples often have a common value system. Woodley refers to this shared indigenous life-construct, which views harmony as the necessary factor for flourishing, as “Harmony Way.”33 The symbiotic relationship between humanity and animals upheld in Native cultures is readily evidenced in historic tribal associations with animals.34 While Anglo-Western ideology tends to isolate humanity from the natural world, breaking human relationality with it, Native/Aboriginal ideology recognizes little if any clear “line” drawn between humanity and the natural world and appreciates what ecological hermeneutics would call “a basic interconnectedness between humans and nature, or between the spiritual and the material,” without which we cannot flourish.35 Furthermore, the natural world is “itself a spiritual entity,” because the Spirit of God is “infused into creation.”36 There is a spiritual nature at the core of all creation. For Christian Natives this elicits more clarification, as they quickly distinguish, “the Spirit [is] in the Earth, not the spirit of the earth.”37 Therefore, it is argued, spiritual nature does not necessitate 31.  Fontaine, “Go Forth,” 140, italics original. 32.  Cheryl Bear, “No Fence Can Hold,” in Unsettling the Word: Biblical Experiments in Decolonization, ed. Steve Heinrichs (Maryknoll: Orbis, 2019), 122–25 (124). 33.  Woodley, Shalom, xiii. 34.  Sarah Deer and Liz Murphy, “ ‘Animals May Take Pity on Us’: Using Traditional Tribal Beliefs to Address Animal Abuse and Family Violence Within Tribal Nations,” Mitchell Hamline Law Review 43, no. 4 (2017): 703–42 (704). 35.  Brooke Prentis, “What Can the Birds of the Land Tell Us?,” in Grounded in the Body, in Time and Place, in Scripture, ed. Jill Firth and Denise Cooper-Clarke (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2021), 24; Habel and Trudinger, Preface to Exploring Ecological Hermeneutics, vii. 36.  Cheryl Bear-Barnetson, Introduction to First Nations Ministry: Centre for Pentecostal Theology (Cleveland: Cherohala, 2013), 44; Kidwell, Noley, and Tinker, A Native American Theology, 127. Cf. Marie Turner’s ecological reading of the Wisdom of Solomon, particularly focused on 12:1: “For your [the Lord’s] immortal spirit is in all things” (NRSV), in which she concludes “in this theology, the Earth is a mutual partner with humankind as the locus of God’s presence” (“The Spirit of Wisdom in All Things: The Mutuality of Earth and Humankind,” in Exploring Ecological Hermeneutics, 113–22). 37.  Bear-Barnetson, Introduction, 44.

M

A

Harmony between Humanity

123

pantheism.38 God is other than Earth, but is deeply active in Earth, experienced throughout all the natural world. Viviers, writing on the Song, describes this same phenomenon: “God is not named in the Song, but is everywhere to be tasted, smelled, heard, seen and touched”; she continues, a “sensory experience of God is shared by humanity and the natural world; it is by this deep experience that humanity and the natural world become fully alive.”39 Thus, the clear implication of the Song is that with only “a plundered, stripped and impoverished Earth, there can be no deep experience, only empty existence. Without a rich materiality no spirituality!”40 Perhaps, then, God can be seen in the Song with Native eyes. This view of God’s relation to the natural world starts to be articulated in Fretheim’s work on wisdom texts in the Bible, when he writes, “God is deeply immersed in the very stuff of the creation.”41 Fretheim entitles this immersion as God’s “structural divine presence” within the natural world; “God is truly present in, with, and under every aspect of the created order,” as God’s presence is understood to be inbuilt in creation’s very structure.42 As such, it rightly follows that the natural world is full of other beings who live, breathe, move, and relate to God and each other, not simply humans.43 Native theologians see this readily affirmed elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Isa 55:12; Ps 19:1–2; Job 12:7–8),44 and thus appeal 38.  Though Christian Natives do not regard themselves as pantheistic, hesitancy pertaining to distinctions between personalizing and personifying and divinizing and spiritualizing has been voiced rightly. Natives see Earth as “Mother Earth,” yet not as a self-sustaining being but a creature of the Creator, spiritual but not divine. Yet, some consider this to be inherently pantheistic, God being with Earth and in Earth, or Earth manifesting God (James Nash, Loving Nature: Ecological Integrity and Christian Responsibility [Nashville: Abingdon, 1991], 96; Christopher J. H. Wright, Old Testament Ethics [Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2004], 108–12). 39.  Viviers, “Eco-Delight,” 153, 154. 40.  Ibid., 153. 41.  Fretheim, God and World, 23. 42.  Ibid., 251, 263. So also Trublet (“Peut-on parler?”), who, utilizing a wealth of biblical passages in his exploration of an Old Testament view of nature, concludes that whether one sees God as more transcendent or more immanent in the natural world affects one’s relationship with fauna, the earth, and flora. 43.  Terry LeBlanc, “New Old Perspectives: Theological Observations Reflecting Indigenous Worldviews,” in Global Theology in Evangelical Perspective: Exploring the Contextual Nature of Theology and Mission, ed. Jeffrey P. Greenman and Gene L. Green (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2012), 166–78 (171); Kidwell, Noley, and Tinker, A Native American Theology, 35. 44.  See also Deut 30:19; 32:1; Isa 1:2; Pss 19; 50:1–6; 96:11–13; 98:7–9.

124

Human Interaction with the Natural World

to others to also learn from the natural world as it relates to humans and to God. God created all living entities—humans, animals, Earth—to be related spiritually to one another.45 When in harmony together, each lives out its proper function in symbiotic relationship to the others. The natural world, then, is considered an active entity working alongside, not beneath, humanity. Humans are but one part of a relational system. As a part of the whole, humans, along with other relatives in the created world, have a responsibility to it.46 Harmony Way requires from Native people certain practices, requiring specific acts of justice and restoration when harmony has been broken.47 The principles of harmony provide the right path for living. If God’s Spirit is experienced through created things, the natural world is “the source of physical and spiritual sustenance for the people.”48 As such, Natives care for the natural world, in Keith Basso’s words, “just as I would my children”; the natural world should be treated with care, gentleness, respect, without rush or hurry, and with a hope and expectation for what it will become.49 Through this intimate relationship between humanity and the natural world, Natives understand themselves as co-creatures working together for the benefit of others. Like the Song, Native theology envisions a world in which there is harmony between the whole of the natural world, man and woman, individual and community, humanity and the natural world, creation and the Creator. But this kind of harmonious relationship can only be had if the natural world is regarded as a co-creature and active agent, otherwise it is not a relationship at all, but a one-sided domination from top-down, humanity above the rest of the natural world. Native theology offers a necessary corrective: humanity and the natural world are perhaps not as separate as Anglo-Westerners have purported. Conclusion The Song, perhaps more than any other text in the Hebrew Bible, conjures idyllic scenes of harmonious relationship between humanity and the natural world, likely resulting from a more immanent and implicit theology. The Song communicates its love-story by means of natural-world imagery, 45.  Kidwell, Noley, and Tinker, A Native American Theology, 127. 46.  Ibid., 38–39. 47.  Woodley, Shalom, xv. 48.  Kidwell, Noley, and Tinker, A Native American Theology, 127. 49.  Keith H. Basso, Wisdom Sits in Places: Landscape and Language Among the Western Apache (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1996), 22.

M

A

Harmony between Humanity

125

through a vision of shared creatureliness and shared creaturely space. As such, in furthering Davis’s work, it has been demonstrated that at the Song’s foundation is an assumption that humans are co-creatures set in interdependent relationship with the natural world. Therefore, Native theology has preserved an ancient paradigm through which to better understand the relationship between humanity and the natural world in the Song, a paradigm which some ecological readers, like Davis, have begun to unearth. While the three relationships—among humans, between humanity and the natural world, and between humanity and God—suggested by Davis can be teased apart, it might be that harmony is felt most profoundly when they remain inextricably woven together.

Chapter 10

D

M B

C P

S C

S

:

C

Danilo Verde

Observing birds and their behavior has always inspired poets,1 including biblical poets, and Tova Forti has undoubtedly contributed a great deal towards a better appreciation of bird metaphors in the Hebrew Bible.2 The present study limits itself to a particular type of bird metaphor, namely dove metaphors, as they are used in the Song of Songs. The Hebrew lexeme ‫יונה‬, “dove,” indicates the gray-blue rock pigeon (Columbia livia) and occurs throughout the Hebrew Bible both metaphorically and literally.3 The Song employs ‫ יונה‬as a metaphor for the beloved

1.  It suffices to mention Homer’s famous portrayal of the Trojans (Iliad 3.1–9); the lyric poem Passer, deliciae meae puellae by the Latin poet Catullus; the bird metaphors used by Dante Alighieri to characterize lecherous people in the Divine Commedy (Inferno, Canto V, vv. 40–43); Romeo’s representation of Juliet as a dove in Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare (Act 1, Scene 5, Line 55); and the poem Il passero solitario by Giacomo Leopardi. 2.  See Tova L. Forti, Animal Imagery in the Book of Proverbs, VTSup 118 (Leiden: Brill, 2008); idem, “Like a Lone Bird on a Roof”: Animal Imagery and the Structure of Psalms, Critical Studies in the Hebrew Bible 10 (University Park: Eisenbrauns, 2018); idem, “ ‘Even the Sparrow Has Found a Home’ (Ps 84:4): From Uprooting and Wandering to Safety and Intimacy,” in Networks of Metaphors in the Hebrew Bible, ed. Danilo Verde and Antje Labahn, BETL 309 (Leuven: Peeters 2020), 233–44; Katharine J. Dell and Tova Forti, “ ‘When a Bird Flies through the Air: Enigmatic Paths of Birds in Wisdom Literature,” in Verde and Labahn, ed., Networks of Metaphors, 245–62. 3.  See Peter Riede, “Taube,” https://www.bibelwissenschaft.de/stichwort/32559/ (accessed 25 March 2020).

V

Dove Metaphors in the Song of Songs

127

woman on several occasions (1:15; 2:14; 4:1; 5:2; 6:9), and only once as a metaphor for the beloved man (5:12). Even a cursory look at scholarly research on the Song’s dove metaphors immediately reveals two main trends among exegetes: one group of scholars reads these metaphors as referring to the form of doves and, more generally, to the visual dimension (i.e. what doves look like); and another identifies the so-called tertium comparations with the doves’ function (i.e. what doves do).4 Besides the fact that these two readings are by no means mutually exclusive, other possible meanings may also be at stake due to the polysemy of poetic metaphors. Granted, the fact that poetic metaphors are inherently “open-ended” does not imply that in poetry a metaphor can mean everything and anything. Yet, in my view, the almost exclusive focus on either the form or the function of doves has led exegetes to overlook other important connotations. Furthermore, scholars’ exclusive focus on the tertium comparations is methodologically very problematic. As recent studies in the field of cognitive linguistics have convincingly shown, the very core of metaphor is the new conceptualization that metaphor generates, rather than the element that source and target domains may have in common and that triggers the metaphorical process (i.e. the tertium comparations).5 Equally problematic from a methodological point of view is the widespread tendency among biblical scholars to infer the meaning of the Song’s metaphors by merely observing similar uses in ancient Near Eastern sources. A great deal of caution is necessary since, on the one hand, the Song obviously shared a common repertoire of images, metaphors, and conceptual associations with its Umwelt; but on the other hand, being poetry, the Song may also have elaborated that repertoire in its own way, generating new metaphors and new meanings. In poetry, indeed, metaphor both employs and “violates” common language and trite expressions or ideas.6 After addressing conventional uses of dove metaphors in the Hebrew Bible and cognate literature (§1), I shall explore whether and to what extent the Song reworked these conventions (§2). I shall argue that the

4.  A thorough description of these two trends with bibliographical references can be found in Brian P. Gault, Body as Landscape, Love as Intoxication: Conceptual Metaphors in the Song of Songs, AIL 36 (Atlanta: SBL, 2019), 139–44. 5.  See Gill Fauconnier and Mark Turner, “Rethinking Metaphors,” in The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, ed. Raymond W. Gibbs (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 53–66. 6.  See Elena Semino and Gerard Steen, “Metaphor in Literature,” in Gibbs, ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, 232–46.

128

Human Interaction with the Natural World

Song’s use of dove metaphors is highly creative, although grounded in its Umwelt. 1. Exploring Cultural Conventions Within the Hebrew Bible, dove metaphors occur in both the prophetic books and the book of Psalms, and most often depict a condition of deep sorrow and vulnerability. Other conceptual connections can also be found—albeit less frequently—such as the connections dove-stupidity and dove-messenger. These conceptual connections also occur in ancient Israel’s Umwelt, suggesting that at least some of the biblical dovemetaphors were highly conventional, namely they were deeply entrenched and well-known not only in ancient Israel’s speech community but also in its broader cultural world. In both the prophetic books and the Psalter, doves most often represent mourning and distress. For instance, close to his death, Hezekiah pleads with YHWH through a very intense and dramatic prayer (Isa 38:10–20) that contains the following words in v. 14: Like a swallow or a swift I chirp I moan like a dove (‫)אהגה כיונה‬.7

Exactly the same metaphor is employed to describe the people of Israel in Isa 59:11: All of us growl like bears, and like doves we ever moan (‫)כיונים הגה נהגה‬.

Note the use of the very same verb ‫הגה‬, “moan, growl,” which in 59:11 is even further emphasized through the infinitive absolute, ‫הגה נהגה‬, lit. “we moan mournfully.” The representation of the act of lamenting via the dove metaphor can also be found in Ezek 7:16, which employs another Hebrew verb for moaning (‫)המה‬: And their refugees flee and come to the mountains, like doves of the valleys they all moan (‫ )כלם המות‬in their crime.

7.  Unless otherwise indicated, all biblical translations are taken from Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary, 3 vols. (New York: W. W. Norton, 2019).

V

Dove Metaphors in the Song of Songs

129

We are in the context of an oracle against Judah (7:1–27) that announced the Dies irae (v. 3). After foretelling an impending disaster on God’s people and that YHWH will have no mercy on Judah’s sin (vv. 8–9), v. 15 describes a horrific scenario of blood, famine, and plague. The specification “like doves of the valleys” (‫ )כיוני הגאיות‬in v. 16 probably represents the fugitives of Judah, leaving their towns and cities to hide in the mountains.8 Doves and the act of mourning are also associated in Nah 2:8: And the mistress is brought out, exiled, and their slavegirls moan like doves, beating on their chests.

The Hebrew in this verse is fraught with difficulties, and therefore a number of issues are hotly disputed.9 Nevertheless, the overall meaning of Nah 2:8 seems to be clear: it portrays the defeated city of Nineveh as a woman accompanied by maidservants moaning like doves and beating their own breasts, an expression of sorrow and maybe of guilt. In all likelihood, here the dove metaphor also evokes Ishtar, the goddess of Nineveh, who is often represented together with doves in ancient Near Eastern texts and iconography (see below). The biblical poet cleverly intertwines two conventional images—the dove image for lament, and the dove image for Ishtar—to represent the fall and sorrow of two subjects merging in the very same picture, namely the Assyrian city of Nineveh and its powerful protectress (the goddess Ishtar). In another group of texts doves are represented as weak animals flying away in an attempt to find some repair. In Isa 60:8, for instance, we read the following: Who are these who fly like a cloud, and like doves to their cotes?10

The obvious reference seems to be to the people in exile, who can finally fly back to their safe refuge, namely their land. Likewise, in Ps 55:7 8.  Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 260–61. 9.  See discussion in Laurel Lanner, “Who Will Lament Her?”: The Feminine and the Fantastic in the Book of Nahum, LHBOTS 434 (New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 129–35. 10.  It has been argued that the dove metaphor in Isa 60:8–9 is echoed by the name and story of Jonah, but “whereas in Isa 60:8 the dove-ships come from Tarsish, Jonah flies to Tarsish, inverting the centripetal movement of Isaiah’s universalism.” See

130

Human Interaction with the Natural World

the dove clearly represents the afflicted and oppressed supplicant, who wants to escape their misery and find a repair from their abusive enemies (vv. 8–9).11 And I say, “Would I had wings like a dove. I would fly off and find rest […].”

In contexts in which the people’s hope for salvation is misplaced, however, the dove becomes a metaphor for stupidity. This is the case in Jer 48:28: Leave the towns and dwell among the rocks, O dwellers of Moab, and be like the dove that nests on the brink of a pit.

In this verse, YHWH seems to ironically suggest that Moab follows its instinct for safety (except that there is nothing more precarious than the refuge that Moab has chosen for itself!). The association dove-stupidity more clearly emerges in Hos 7:11: And Ephraim became like a foolish senseless dove.

The metaphor is explained in the second part of the verse: “To Egypt they called, to Assyria went.” In other words, the stupidity of Ephraimthe-dove consists in looking for refuge among the enemies rather than in YHWH, who therefore will bring them down like a hunter (v. 12). In the book of Hosea, the dove metaphor will also appear in 11:11 where, scared by the roaring of Yhwh-the-lion, the people fly from Egypt and Assyria back to their home: They shall hasten like a bird from Egypt, like a dove from Assyria’s land and I will settle them in their homes, said the Lord.12

Jean-Pierre Sonnet, “Da Isaia a Giona: le ali della colomba,” in La Profezia tra l’uno e l’altro Testamento: Studi in onore sel Prof. Pietro Bovati in occasione del suo settantacinquesimo compleanno, ed. Guido Benzi, Donatella Scaiola, and Marco Bonarini, Analecta Biblica Studies 4 (Rome: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2015), 150–62 (162). 11.  Note that the lexeme ‫ יונה‬also occurs in Ps 56:1, “For the lead player, on jonath elem rehokim,” the meaning of which is unclear. 12.  For the imagery employed in these verses, see Francis Landy, Hosea, 2nd ed. (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2011), 108ff., 166–7.

V

Dove Metaphors in the Song of Songs

131

Hosea 7:11 and 11:11 seem to picture Ephraim as frantic and anxious, and its behavior as driven merely by fear, an emotional condition that dumbs the people down. A special case is the mention of the dove in Ps 68:14. The context refers to a military victory of YHWH over the chieftains of enemy armies (v. 12). A company of women (‫ )המבשרות‬announces YHWH’s triumph (v. 12), saying that while the enemies are in flight, those who are at home share the spoils (v. 13). These women seem to address a group of men, or including men, in v. 14: If you lie down among sheepfolds (‫…)בין שפתים‬ The wings of the dove are inlaid with silver, and her pinions with precious gold.

The first part of the verse seems to recall the words of Deborah in Judg 5:16, who reproached Reuben for not taking part in the coalition against the Canaanite king of Hazor (“Why did you stay among the sheepfolds [‫]בין המשפתים‬, listening for the whistle, with the flocks?”). Likewise, Ps 68:14 might be a reprimand against some members of the community who did not want to go to war. The question arises as to how we should understand the second part of the verse and, more specifically, the reference to the dove. Proposals for the meaning of the dove in Ps 68:14 are as numerous as the exegetes commenting on this verse. The mention of the dove is probably to be taken literally, as a real dove adorned and released to announce YHWH’s military victory in line with similar practices in the ancient Near East.13 Given the metaphorical association dove-Israel attested in the Hebrew Bible (see above), nothing excludes that the dove adorned and let free to fly in Ps 68:14 was not only a genuine dove used as a messenger of salvation, but also a symbol (rather than a metaphor14) for Israel, evoking the splendor of the nation that was set free by YHWH’s military victory. We should admit, however, that the lack of clarity of Ps 68:14 makes any interpretation of this verse quite speculative. 13.  See the discussion and bibliographical references in Marvin E. Tate, Psalms 51–100, WBC 20 (Dallas: Word, 1990), 178–9. See especially Othmar Keel and Urs Winter, Vögel als Boten: Studien zu Ps 68, 12–14, Gen 8, 6–12, Koh 10, 20 und dem Aussenden von Botenvögeln in Ägypten, OBO 14 (Fribourg: Universitätsverlag, 1977), 34–6. 14.  Whereas a symbol is a reality A that evokes a reality B (e.g. a dove may evoke Israel), a metaphor is a reality A that is conceptualized in terms of a reality B (e.g. Israel is thought of as a dove).

132

Human Interaction with the Natural World

The widespread biblical use of the dove metaphor to represent individual and community mourning is not an isolated case in the ancient Near East. It suffices to have a look at Akkadian prayers. For instance, in The Poem of the Righteous Sufferer, while the supplicant gives voice to his disgrace, he says “I moaned like a dove all my days. Like a singer, I wail my dirge aloud.”15 Note the same association moaning-cooing-singing mentioned above. The phrase “to moan like a dove” is a recurrent motif in a number of Akkadian texts, for example The Instructions of Shupe-Ameli,16 The Great Prayer to Ištar,17 the Literary Prayer to Ištar,18 in a text to Ea, Šamaš, and Marduk,19 and in the dingir.šà.dib.ba-prayers.20 The conceptual association between the image of doves flying away and fear found in Hos 7:11 and 11:11 has a parallel in Sennacherib’s description of the Elamites, “whose hearts were beating like a pursued young dove.”21 In an Akkadian text about love, however, the image of doves flying away is not connected to fear, but rather to the lovers’ elusiveness. This is the erotic text titled by Foster Where Has My Lover Gone, which describes a lover unexpectedly leaving his beloved woman in the very moment she is trying to hug him.22 Dove and love are often associated throughout the ancient Near East and across the eastern Mediterranean area, probably due to the doves’ “sexual exuberance” and fecundity. As Othmar Keel has shown, in a number of literary and iconographic sources doves often appear as messengers of love in connection with Ishtar/Astarte and Aphrodite, goddesses of love and fertility.23 Keel and Urs Winter have provided further evidence that doves were regularly understood as messengers in Western Asia and Egypt.24 Such a connection does not appear either in the prophetic books of the Hebrew Bible or in the psalms, but may certainly have played a role in the Song (see the next section). 15.  Benjamin R. Foster, Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature (Bethesda: CDL, 2005), 398. 16.  Ibid., 419. 17.  Ibid., 603. 18.  Ibid., 607. 19.  Ibid., 645. 20.  Ibid., 723 21.  Daniel D. Luckenbill, The Annals of Sennacherib, OIP 2 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1924), 47; David Marcus, “Animal Similes in Assyrian Royal Inscriptions,” Or 46 (1977): 89–106 (96). 22.  Foster, Before the Muses, 165. 23.  Othmar Keel, Deine Blicke sind Tauben: Zur Metaphorik des Hohenlieds, SBS 114/115 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1984), 53–62. 24.  Keel and Winter, Vögel als Boten, 34–6.

V

Dove Metaphors in the Song of Songs

133

To sum up, both the Hebrew Bible and ancient Near Eastern sources suggest that in ancient Israel and its Umwelt doves were conventionally associated with suffering, especially with individual and collective mourning. What triggered such association seems to be primarily the cooing of doves, which apparently sounded similar to people’s moaning and, plausibly, to the tune of their songs of lament. Other metaphorical uses of doves can also be noted, for example, the use of doves to represent the attempt to escape from a certain condition, or to represent human stupidity, or as messengers of salvation. Absent in both the prophetic books and the psalms, but widespread in ancient Near Eastern cognate literature, was the use of doves to recall love and fertility. The question then arises as to how the Song dealt with these more or less widespread cultural conventions. 2. Exploring Poetic Creativity The term ‫ יונה‬occurs six times in the Song (1:15; 2:14; 4:1; 5:2, 12; 6:9) and, as already mentioned, is mainly used as a metaphor for the beloved woman, the only exception being 5:12, which is about the beloved man. It seems to me that two different uses of the dove metaphor can be distinguished in the Song: in a group of verses the dove metaphor seems to evoke the concept of graciousness (1:15; 5:12; 6:9) that provides a balance to the uncanny beauty of both lovers; in another group it represents the woman while she hides herself (2:14; 4:1; 5:2) and it conceptualizes her as a sly seductress who attracts by remaining out of sight. Song 1:15, 5:12, and 6:9 I will first treat the dove metaphors in 1:15 and 6:9, since they both refer to the woman. When we read these verses within their immediate context, we cannot fail to notice that the beloved man mainly focuses on the woman’s breath-taking beauty. His use of the dove metaphor in 1:15 and 6:9 should therefore be read in light of the man’s emphasis on what the woman looks like. The man starts talking in 1:9 (or maybe in 1:8) by representing the woman as beautiful and powerful as a military mare,25 and he then repeatedly underscores her beauty. He starts by staring at her cheeks and neck (v. 10: “Your cheeks are lovely [‫ ]נאוו‬with looped earrings, your neck with beads”), the charm of which is enhanced by her jewelry (charm that he wants to enhance even more by making new earrings for her in 25.  For the interpretation of Song 1:9, see Danilo Verde, Conquered Conquerors: Love and War in the Song of Songs, AIL 41 (Atlanta: SBL, 2020), 134–50.

134

Human Interaction with the Natural World

v. 11). After being interrupted by the woman (vv. 12–14), he continues with his compliments in v. 15: O you are fair (‫)יפה‬, my friend, O you are fair (‫)יפה‬, your eyes are doves.

His words about her beauty are immediately echoed by the woman who returns the compliments in v. 16: O you are fair (‫)יפה‬, my lover, you are sweet…

Although in cognate literature doves stand for “messengers of love,” and this meaning certainly suits a dialogue between lovers, upon closer inspection nothing in Song 1:15 explicitly suggests that she is sending him messages of love. What the text does explicitly point at is the woman’s beauty. It would suffice to pay attention to the man’s use of the adjectives ‫ יפה‬and ‫נאוה‬. In the Hebrew Bible, the lexeme ‫ יפה‬is usually combined with terms such as ‫תאר‬, “form,” and ‫מראה‬, “appearance,”26 and often occurs with reference to the body’s attractiveness.27 In the Song, ‫ יפה‬is mainly used to describe the woman28 and is often connected to her body (only once it refers to the man, in 1:16). In 1:15, therefore, the lexeme ‫ יפה‬is to be regarded as indicating a specific element of the conceptual domain , namely the outward aspect of the woman’s body. As for ‫נאוה‬, despite the fact that in the Hebrew Bible it may occasionally indicate the quality of “being appropriate,”29 the likely connection with ‫אוה‬, “longing,” suggests that it also holds the meaning of “desirable.”30 This meaning particularly fits in the Song, in which ‫ נאוה‬indicates the woman’s charm (1:5; 2:14; 4:3; 6:4). In other words, “while ‫ יפה‬underscores the beauty of the woman’s body, ‫ נאוה‬specifies that her beautiful aspect elicits the man’s longing.”31 The fact that the woman’s eyes are the target of the dove metaphor in 1:15 per se is not enough to say that she is sending messages of love through her glances. The man’s focus on her eyes may simply depend on the fact that while the two lovers were staring at each other and praising each other’s beauty, the woman’s eyes 26.  E.g. Gen 29:17; 39:6; 41:18; Deut 21:11; 1 Sam 17:42; 2 Sam 14:27; Jer 11:16. 27.  E.g. Gen 39:6; 2 Sam 13:1; Ezek 31:3; 33:32; Prov 11:22. 28.  Song 1:8, 15; 2:10, 13; 4:1, 7, 10; 5:9; 6:1, 4, 10; 7:2, 7. 29.  E.g. Pss 33:1; 147:1; Prov 17:7. 30.  See Gerald H. Wilson, “‫נוה‬,” NIDOTTE 3:54–56; Helmer Ringgren, “‫נָ וֶ ה‬,” TWAT 5:294–98. 31.  Verde, Conquered Conquerors, 65–6.

V

Dove Metaphors in the Song of Songs

135

caught the man’s attention, and, maybe, the contour of her eyes triggered the resemblance with the shape of a dove (a bird widely associated with love). In the context of the man’s words of praise for the woman’s beauty, this makes sense since doves may easily be perceived as very pretty, harmonious, and graceful birds, in one word as “beautiful.” To my mind, it is the pleasant even delicate look of the woman’s beauty that is at stake here. It is worth noting how the two faunal metaphors clash, namely the military mare (1:9) and the dove (1:15), metaphors that suggest two very different aspects of the woman’s beauty: its impetuous even chaotic power on the one hand, and its grace and gentleness on the other. The presence of these apparently contradictory aspects is perfectly in line with the Song’s characterization of the woman, whose beauty is simultaneously elegant and sophisticated on the one hand, and utterly wild (see for instance 1:5), irresistible and disconcerting (see 6:4) on the other. The dove metaphor is used to represent the woman’s extraordinary beauty also in 6:9. From the man’s perspective, she is perfect and unique, and there is no possible comparison with other women, who also recognize and praise her beauty. Just one is my dove (‫)אחת היא יונתי‬, my pure one (‫)תמתי‬, Just one to her mother (‫)אחת היא לאמה‬, Dazzling (‫ )ברה היא‬to her who bore her. The girls saw her and called her happy (‫)ויאשרוה‬, Queens and concubines, and they praised her (‫)ויהללוה‬.

Here again, there is no sign that the man sees his lover as a dove because she is sending messages of love, whereas her uncommon beauty is very much emphasized not only in 6:9 but throughout the literary unit to which this verse belongs (6:4–10). Song 6:4–10 is indeed enveloped by the man’s astonishment at his lover’s beauty (6:4, 10) and by military representations of the woman as “frightening as an army with deployed banners” (‫)אימה כנדגלות‬.32 In the middle of this section, we hear the man describing her marvelous body (6:5–9), emphasizing that the woman simultaneously attracts and overwhelms him in v. 5: Turn away your eyes from me, for they have overwhelmed me. Your hair is like a herd of goats that have swept down from Mount Gilead.

32.  Alter translates “daunting as what looms on high.” For the discussion of this expression, see Verde, Conquered Conquerors, 65–80.

136

Human Interaction with the Natural World

The woman’s beauty is both highly desirable and profoundly disquieting, as suggested by both the military image in 6:4 and the initial words in 6:5, as well as by the image of goats gamboling down from the mountains, which conveys the wild aspect of the woman’s beauty and the emotional turmoil that she generates in her lover. Note the conceptual coherence between the use of the dove metaphor in the context of 6:4–10 and in the context of 1:9–17: in both cases, the dove metaphor allows the man to see and hold together the staggering beauty of the woman (the mare, the army, the goats) and her graciousness, and maybe even her vulnerability (the dove). Song 5:12 Finally, in 5:12 the woman employs the dove metaphor to describe her lover: His eyes are like doves (‫)עיניו כיונים‬ by streams of water, bathed in milk, dwelling by a pool.

Besides the fact that the final line is philologically problematic,33 the overall meaning of the metaphor is not easy to decipher. Perhaps, as Exum argues, “[d]oves in pellucid pools, as though bathing in milk, suggest the pupil and iris surrounded by the wet milky whiteness of the eye.”34 Through this explanation, however, Exum, identifies the tertium comparationis, rather than the conceptualization of the man’s eyes that the metaphor creates. We need to look at the immediate context to better understand the dove metaphor in 5:12. This verse belongs to a long section (5:2–6:3), which is mainly said by the woman, and more precisely to a waṣf (5:10–16), namely a widespread literary genre in Palestinian, Arab and Egyptian literature through which lovers were used to describe one another’s body.35 Through her waṣf, the woman intends to answer the question raised by the daughters of Jerusalem in 5:9: “How is your lover more than another?” Her song (5:10–16), therefore, seeks to explain 33.  The final ‫ מלאת‬that Alter translates “pool” is hapax and its meaning is therefore uncertain. 34.  Cheryl J. Exum, Song of Songs, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005), 214–15. 35.  See Bernard Mathieu, La poésie amoureuse de l’Égypte Ancienne: Recherche sur un genre littéraire au Nouvel Empire, BEIFAO 115 (Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire, 1996), 187–8.

V

Dove Metaphors in the Song of Songs

137

why she is so madly in love and how extraordinarily beautiful he is. The woman starts with a general portrayal of the man as outstanding and dazzling (5:10) and she then focuses on different parts of his body. As several scholars have already argued, the woman’s description of her lover seems to be inspired by Egyptian statues of gods.36 There is therefore something god-like about him, but there is also something very dark and wild in his beauty. Indeed, after saying that “his head is purest gold” (v. 11) the woman describes his locks as “black as a raven” (‫)שחרות כעורב‬. On the chromatic level, the image of the man’s black hair creates a strong contrast with the mention of the gold, as well as with the image of white doves in v. 12. Note also that, besides being of opposite color, the raven is an animal of the desert, whereas the doves are here connected to water and milk; the former is an unclean bird, whereas the second is a clean bird.37 These contrasts suggest that the woman perceives the man’s body as simultaneously “beautiful and terrible,” attractive and awe-inspiring (see also 5:10): certainly, he is like a god, but he also has a touch of darkness, which makes his aspect more perturbing, and therefore, more intriguing. The dove metaphor in 5:12 seems to be employed to balance the dark side of the man’s beauty, by means of an image of gentleness and graciousness. Song 5:12, therefore, perfectly mirrors 1:12 and 6:9: in all these verses, doves are used as gracious and harmonious birds and provide a counterpoint to near metaphors for the overwhelming aspect of both the woman’s and the man’s allure. Song 2:14, 4:1, and 5:2 In this group of verses, the dove metaphor seems to have to do first and foremost with the dynamic of courtship between the two lovers. Song 2:14 belongs to a section (2:8–17) that starts with the woman’s words announcing the arrival of her beloved (v. 8) and ends with a very ambiguous invitation through which she asks the man to go back to “the 36.  See, for instance, Gianni Barbiero, Song of Songs: A Close Reading, VTSup 144 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 287. 37.  The two birds notoriously occur together in the flood story (Gen 8:6–12), but the meaning and function of their presence within the narrative is far from clear. See Robert W. L. Moberly, “Why Did Noah Send Out a Raven?,” VT 50 (2000): 345–56. Philo provides evidence that within Jewish tradition ravens and doves were respectively considered symbols of vice and virtue, evil and good. Assuming that the Song is a late biblical book—although some scholars disagree on this—Philo (ca. 20 BCE– 50 CE) may reflect cultural assumptions that were already established in the period when the Song was redacted (probably between the third and second century BCE). See Philo, QG II.35–39 (LCL 380).

138

Human Interaction with the Natural World

cloven mountains” (v. 17). Given the representation of the woman’s body as a landscape throughout the Song, “the cloven mountains” may be a metaphor for her breasts. Through this perhaps intentional ambiguity, in v. 17 the woman may be teasing the man, leaving him (and us) wondering what she really wants: is she sending her lover away (to the mountains, from which he came according to 2:8) or is she actually asking for another sexual encounter? In 2:9, the two lovers are close to each other but separated. Indeed, the man is standing behind a wall, “peering through the windows, peeping through the crannies.” In 2:10, he starts talking and repeatedly invites the woman to join the reawakening of nature with him (vv. 10 and 13). At this point (2:14), the man uses the dove metaphor: My dove (‫ )יונתי‬in the rock’s crevices, in the hollow of the cliff, show me how you look, let me hear your voice, for your voice is sweet and your look desirable.

Her position behind the wall, the windows, and the crannies probably triggers the metaphor of the dove hiding in the rock’s crevices and in the hollow of the cliff. While he pleads with her to talk to him and show herself, nowhere in this scene is it said that she goes along with his invitations. Maybe v. 16 suggests that the actual encounter did happen (“My lover is mine and I am his, who grazes among lilies”), but whatever the case might be, the dove metaphor emphasizes the moment within the courtship dynamic when she is hiding herself. Neither the form nor the function of doves as messengers of love seem to play a major role here; rather, the dove metaphor seems to point out her elusiveness, through which she probably plays hard to get.38 The same use of the dove metaphor may also be found in 4:1: O you are fair, my friend, O you are fair. Your eyes are doves (‫)עיניך יונים‬ behind your veil (‫)מבעד לצמתך‬.39 38.  This dynamic can be found throughout the Song. See Verde, Conquered Conquerors, 45–64. 39.  Alter renders the Hebrew expression ‫ מבעד לצמתך‬by “through the screen of your tresses,” in line with several exegetes who argued against the meaning of “veil” for the rare Hebrew lexeme ‫צמה‬. See for instance P. W. T. Stoop-Van

V

Dove Metaphors in the Song of Songs

139

The man describes what he can only glimpse of the woman through her veil. Behind her veil, she can simultaneously show and hide herself, sending messages of love (here, yes!) and probably playing a game of seduction that consists in feeding the fire of the man’s passion through her apparent elusiveness and unreachability. The secret of the woman’s irresistible beauty seems to be this combination of “feigned” modesty and “discreet” audacity. The same dynamic surrounds the use of the dove metaphor in 5:2: Open for me, my sister, my friend, my dove (‫)יונתי‬, my perfect one.

The man comes in the night while she is in bed (5:2). Here again, the two lovers are close to each other but separated, this time by a door. The man therefore asks her to let him in, but the woman’s reply is again very ambiguous: I have put off my gown, How can I don it? I have bathed my feet, How can I besmirch them?

On the one hand, she seems unwilling to meet him, but, on the other, she alludes to her nudity, giving the impression that she is actually playing a coy game that aims at her lovers’ arousal. To sum up, in 2:14; 4:1; and 5:2 the dove metaphor pictures the woman as hidden. The form of doves plays no role in these verses and the function of doves as messengers of love may be present only in 4:1. In these verses, dove metaphors seem to portray the woman as elusive, while she retreats to elicit the man’s advances. As Jean-Pierre Sonnet recently put it: “The image of the dove is…a living one: it brings into play a living animal, graceful, and shy, always ready to fly away. The beloved is this elusive being.”40

Paridon, The Song of Songs: A Philological Analysis of the Hebrew Book Shir Ha-Shirim, Ancient Near Eastern Studies 17 (Leuven: Peeters, 2005), 177–81. The meaning of “veil,” however, is suggested by several Hebrew lexicons (e.g. HALOT, BDB) and is supported by the use of ‫ צמה‬in Isa 47:2 (‫)גלי צמתך‬. 40.  Jean-Pierre Sonnet, “Metaphor and Metonymy in the Canticle: A Parable of Desire,” in Verde and Labahn, eds., Networks of Metaphors, 313–28, here 323.

140

Human Interaction with the Natural World

3. Conclusion What is therefore the relationship between the Song’s use of dove metaphors and other conventional uses of the same source domain in the Hebrew Bible and cognate literature? The Song has completely avoided widespread associations such as dove-mourning and dove-fear, and less common associations, albeit present in the Hebrew Bible, such as dove-stupidity. The Song does draw on the conceptual connection dove-love, which was well-known in the ancient Near East, but it does so in its own way. On the one hand, doves helped the poet to nuance the uncanny dimension of beauty experienced by the lovers and, on the other hand, they were particularly suitable birds to represent the self-effacing attitude through which the woman pretended to be unavailable to her lover (while actually wishing to be “caught”). This last aspect was probably grounded in the experience of doves as birds that easily fly away looking for safe refuge, which can also be found in the Hebrew Bible and cognate literature. Particularly worth mentioning is the representation of a lover’s elusiveness in the aforementioned Akkadian text Where Has My Lover Gone. The Song’s use of dove metaphors swings between conventionality and creativity, but in the end, it seems to me that it tips the balance in favor of the latter.

Chapter 11

“Y

T R S N L Y C D K ” (L “Y S N P A T ” (D AR -

M 19:19) O 22:10) :

Eran Viezel

1. Leviticus 19:19 presents the following sequence of three prohibitions: “You shall not let your cattle mate with a different kind [kil’ayîm]”; “you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed [kil’ayîm]”; “you shall not put on cloth from a mixture of two kinds of material [ša‘atnēz].” A scholarly consensus has been reached over the meaning of the term kil’ayîm: it denote two kinds or species hybridized together.1 There is also a broad consensus regarding the meaning of the term ša‘atnēz: clothing made of two different materials; usually wool and linen are mentioned.2 1.  Walter Baumgartner, Johann J. Stamm, and Ludwig Koehler, Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 2:475. The word kil’ayîm preserves the consonants k-l-’ which in various Semitic languages denote “both,” thus Arabic kilā, Ge‘ez kel’ē, Ugaritic kl’at, Akkadian (irregular pronoun) kilallān, and also the Mesopotamian priest Kalû (and kulu’u, the Sumerian gala); see Uri Gabbay, “The Akkadian Word for ‘Third Gender’: The Kalû (gala) Once Again,” in Proceedings of the 51st Rencontre Assyriologique Internationle Held at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago July 18–22, 2005, ed. Robert D. Briggs, Jennie Myers, and Martha T. Roths (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008), 50–52. 2.  E.g. Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 17–22, 23–27: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 3, 3A, 3B (New York: Doubleday, 1991–2001), 548; Haim Rabin, Linguistic Studies: Collected Papers in Hebrew and Semitic

142

Human Interaction with the Natural World

The three prohibitions thus reflect a wish to demarcate between different species of animals, plants, and types of material used to produce clothing according to taxonomical criteria. The biblical text provides no wider rationale for these commandments. In the Jewish exegetical tradition, the prohibitions are often touted as paradigmatic examples of statutes with no patent rationale. Traditional explanations of such mysterious laws range between the following extremes: on the one hand, some wish to simply make peace with the mystery, for example, “These statutes are a decree of the King,” and “I, the Lord have made it a statute, and you have no right to criticize it,” and “You must not go over my derivation.”3 Such exegetes often mention that the rationales of the commandment are revealed only to a chosen few,4 that they can only be explained with recourse to esoteric teachings,5 or that their reasons will only become apparent in the afterlife or the World to Come.6 On the other hand, various attempts have been made to provide a cogent explanation for the logic underlying these laws: for example, “to give reasons for the commandments in a manner that conforms to the way of the world,” or “that all the Torah explanations [ṭa’ămê torâ] seemed, [relative] to them, like grass of the field.”7 Lying between these two extremes—that is, between total resignation and attempts to provide a rationale—lie various intermediate positions. Thus, for example, a distinction has been drawn between providing “some rationale based on rational methods,” to explain the law in broad outlines, as opposed explicating the minutiae of a law that often elude any clear explanation.8 Modern scholarship has similarly drawn attention to the opaque nature of the kil’ayîm laws. As far as plants and animals are concerned, Languages (Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language and Bialik Institute, 1999 [Hebrew]), 57. Scholars have pointed to the etymological affinity between the Hebrew word ša‘atnēz and Egyptian and Coptic word (or words), see Milgrom, Leviticus, 1664. 3.  Rashi to Lev 19:19; b. Yoma 67b; Pesikta de Rav Kahana, Para, 7 (ed. Bernard Mandelbaum [New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1987], 74). 4.  Solomon Aviad Sar Shalom Basilea, Faith of the Sages [‘Emunat chachamim] (Warsaw: Joseph Unterhendler, 1888), 9:15b. 5.  Isaac Ben Samuel of Acre, Book of Enlightening [Me’irat ‘enayim] (ed. Chaim Erlanger; Jerusalem: N/A, 1993), 203; Shem Tov Ibn Shem Tov, The Book of Beliefs [ha-‘Emunot] (Ferreira: N/A, 1556–1557), I, 1:7a. 6.  Alphabet of Rabbi Akiba’ [‘Otiyot de-Rabbi Akiba], 7, in Batei Midrashot, ed. Shlomo A. Wertheimer and Abraham J. Wertheimer (Jerusalem: Ktav, 1989), 2:367–68. 7.  Rashbam to Lev 11:34; b. Sanh. 102a. 8.  Rav Sa’adia Gaon, The Book of Beliefs and Opinions (Kitāb al-amānāt wa-aliʿatiqādāt), 3:1.

V

The Relationship

143

a common explanation accepted by most scholars asserts that such actions were regarded as a violation of a divine order of the world. God created animals and plants “according to their kind” (Gen 1:12, 20–21, 24–25) and such prohibitions are aimed at limiting the production of new species that were not part of God’s initial, perfect act of creation.9 As to the prohibition of wearing a garment composed of mixed fabrics, many have suggested that the purpose is to create a hierarchical or moral distinction between the realms of the sacred and profane. The temple rite, so the argument goes, avails itself of ša‘atnēz in its structure and in the priestly vestments;10 for a layperson to don clothes comprised kil’ayîm would represent a similar violation of the divine order.11 This notion, that prohibitions on kil’ayîm seek to prevent disruption of the divine order of creation, has been developed in several directions over the years—both in traditional exegesis as well as in modern scholarship. More often than not, it is the figurative aspect of the various kil’ayîm prohibitions, or their overarching characteristics that have been the point of focus—some arguing, for instance, that the laws are not limited to plants, animals, and garments.12 It seems that such developments, some of which have met 9.  It goes without saying that sowing two species of plants in the same patch of ground does not produce a new species. On this point, see Jeffrey H. Tigay, The JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996), 202. For this reason, scholars generally view the prohibition as a symbolic separation of species and kinds. 10.  Ša‘atnēz is used for the lower cloths of the Tabernacle, for the curtain that covers the inner sanctum (Exod 26:1, 31), and for the breastplate and belt of the high priest (Exod 28:6, 15; 39:29 [v. 29 refers to the vestments of regular priests as well]). By contrast, an Israelite layperson must make do with a blue cord (Num 15:38). Cf. Milgrom, Leviticus, 548–49. 11.  This explanation for the laws of kil’ayîm was already anticipated in antiquity; see Philo, The Special Laws (De Specialibus Legibus) 4:207, 210; Flavius Josephus, A.J. 4:8, 10. It was also commonly used in classical exegesis, see b. Qid. 39a; Sanh. 60a; among medieval exegetes see e.g. Nahmanides to Lev 19:19; among Kabbalistics, see, e.g., R. Joseph Gikatilla to Ezek 1:17, idem, Commentary to Ezekiel’s Chariot, ed. Asi Farber-Ginat (Los Angeles: Cherub, 1998), 68; and among modern scholars, see, e.g., Menachem Haran, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1985), 160; Baruch J. Schwartz, The Holiness Legislation: Studies in the Priestly Code (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1999 [Hebrew]), 324–28; Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus: A Book of Ritual and Ethics (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2014), 233–35, and studies cited there. 12.  Thus kil’ayîm prohibitions were cast as representing any invalid admixture of incompatible elements—the upper world with the lower world, judgment with mercy, purity with contamination and the like—all of which fall under the category of “the

144

Human Interaction with the Natural World

with opposition in scholarship,13 were made possible due to the fundamental opaqueness which pervades the three prohibitions. In what follows, I wish to offer an approach that, while certainly based on the common explanation for kil’ayîm prohibitions, seeks to clarify a particular point which pertains to the prohibition of animal kil’ayîm specifically—a point that has yet to receive significant attention in scholarship. I will argue that this point must be taken into account if we are to clarify the complex relationship between the kil’ayîm prohibitions in Leviticus 19 and those in Deuteronomy 22. 2. In keeping with the common suggestion that kil’ayîm prohibitions in Leviticus 19 reflect a desire to preserve natural boundaries established by God, the three prohibitions represent three distinct spheres: fauna, flora, and human production (which is, in turn, based on animal and plant products). The three prohibitions, taken together, thus represent a comprehensive proscription against any mixing or combination of distinct species or types, and this may have been precisely what the biblical legislator had in mind. However, a comprehensive and abstract theological concept can often turn out to be problematic when reduced to its finer details. prohibition of kil’ayîm and the mixing of powers”: Shlomo Ephraim Luntschitz, Keli Yakar to Exod 23:19; for an explanation in this spirit, and that of modern religious-anthropological scholarship, see Samuel Cooper, “The Laws of Mixture: An Anthropological Study in Halakha,” in Judaism Viewed from Within and from Without: Anthropological Studies, ed. Harvey E. Goldberg (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1987), 55–74, and cf. Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (New York: Routledge, 1984), 54–55; it further bears noting that already in the late Second Temple period, the laws of kil’ayîm were adduced as a basis for the laws of marriage. For relevant sources, see Menahem Kister, “Studies in 4QMiqsat Ma’ase ha-Torah and Related Texts: Law, Theology, Language and Calendar,” Tarbiz 68 (1999): 346 (Hebrew), and see Aharon Shemesh, “Two Principles of the Qumranic Matrimonial Law,” in Fifty Years of the Dead Sea Scrolls Research: Studies in Memory of Jacob Licht, ed. Gershon Brin and Bilha Nitzan (Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi, 2001 [Hebrew]), 181–203; for a similar approach in scholarship (disconnected from earlier sources), see Calum M. Carmichael, Law, Legend, and Incest in the Bible: Leviticus 18–20 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2019), 87–104. 13.  Thus, for example, the explicit debate about the studies of Carmichael, see C. Houtman, “Another Look at Forbidden Mixtures,” VT 34 (1984): 226–28; Jacob Milgrom, “Law and Narrative and the Exegesis of Leviticus XIX 19,” VT 46 (1996): 544–48.

V

The Relationship

145

The prohibition on animal-kil’ayîm differs from its counterparts in other spheres in one interesting respect. There are many ways to sow mixed seeds or to produce clothes by combining fabrics (usually wool, but perhaps also fur, and even leather and bone ornaments). Accordingly, a legislator wishing to proscribe these activities will naturally employ a more general language designating a “field” or a “garment.” By contrast, in the animal example, the possibilities for crossbreeding are far more limited. In the biblical period, at least, the only real application of hybridization was between donkeys and horses: breeding a male donkey with a mare, to produce a mule, or a stallion with a she-ass (a slightly more complex operation due to the stubborn nature of the latter) producing a hinny.14 It should be noted that mules and hinnies are a purely human creation; horses and donkeys will not naturally mate.15 There are no other known instances of interbreeding in the Levant.16 Given that the laws of the Pentateuch were formulated and rooted in an agricultural milieu, it would be difficult to suggest that the people of the time would have so simply assumed that one could breed a sheep with a goat, or a cow with a camel.17 It would thus be safe to say that the choice of the generic noun 14.  Cf. “Every type of mule is the same” as opposed to “one with small ears—his mother is a mare and his father a donkey; one with large ears—his mother is a she-ass and his father a stallion” (y. Kil. 8:4 [31c]). 15.  See Amy McLean et al., “Comparing and Contrasting Knowledge on Mules and Hinnies as a Tool to Comprehend Their Behavior and Improve Their Welfare,” Animals 9 (2019): 1–16. 16.  In various tractates of the Mishnah there are discussions revolving around an animal called a koy. According to one opinion, this is a hybrid, the offspring of a billy-goat and a gazelle (and in order for the laws of kil’ayîm to apply, the gazelle in question must have been raised in captivity, otherwise it does not fall under the category of bǝhemtǝka [“your cattle”]). It seems, however, that the debate is merely theoretical, the koy being used as a general case study of animals which can variously be defined as domestic or wild. It should further be added that there is a wide consensus that the koy (which seems to be the buffalo) was brought to Palestine relatively late in history—towards the end of the Second Temple period. For a detailed discussion of the identity of the koy, including a summary of traditional and scholarly opinions, see Mordechai E. Kislev, “Koy: Kashrut of an Imported Animal,” Techumin 17 (1997): 415–32 (Hebrew), for a discussion of the opinion that it is a hybrid, see ibid., 422–24, and see also Menachem Dor, “The Ruminants in the Bible and in the Mishna: the’o, re’em (dishon), shor ha-bar, meri, koy,” Beit Mikra 37 (1992): 127–28 (Hebrew). 17.  In m. Kilayim various hybrids are mentioned, such as the offspring of wolf and a dog, a wild-dog and jackal, a wild goat and a sheep, and so on (for a summary, see Milgrom, “Law,” 545). However, even if we accept the possibility that the Sages

146

Human Interaction with the Natural World

behemteka (“your cattle”) is not meant to extend the prohibition beyond what was actually possible. Rather it is a consequence of the prohibition’s place in the larger sequence: a series of three prohibitions with a tight thematic structure, which, when taken together, convey an overarching ideological conception regarding God’s world and the limits of human conduct within it.18 If it is true that the prohibition of animal hybridization was practically relevant only to the breeding of horses and donkeys, then it is inherently different from other modes of kil’ayîm in another important respect. As mentioned, it is possible that the prohibition on ša‘atnēz may have sought to create some kind of cultural, ethical or class-based hierarchy. If so, the prohibition on ša‘atnēz had no direct, or necessarily negative, impact on the life of a biblical farmer. In terms of plant-kil’ayîm, some scholars have noted the inherent benefits of mixed sowing—planting different crops in the same field enriches the soil and reduces the risk of reliance on a single staple subject to the ravages of seasonal disease.19 That being said, sowing different species in a single field does have some possible downsides, chief among them impairing the growth rate of the weaker and more delicate crops. In other words, not only does the prohibition on sowing mixed seeds not necessarily harm a farmer; it may even adhere to a certain agricultural logic.20 By contrast, a prohibition on interbreeding exacts a concrete toll. The mule was a well-known creature in the Bible; it was used for agriculture, carrying loads, and riding—even being used to transport the king and the royal family.21 The physical qualities of a hinny are no less than those of a mule, and the (unclear) preference for the latter over the former is, assumed such unions to be productive, these animals nevertheless do not fall under the category of a behemteka (i.e., a domestic or captured animal). I should note that in the 1980s certain genetic manipulations were employed to crossbreed ibexes and goats—the product of which (Capra Hircus X Capra Ibex) ultimately died out from disease. Regardless, there is no historical precedent for such a hybrid. 18.  For a detailed analysis of the structure of this verse, see Schwartz, “The Holiness,” 327–28; Meir Paran, Forms of the Priestly Style in the Pentateuch: Patterns, Linguistic Usages, Syntactic Structures (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1989 [Hebrew]), 132, 211, and in n. 96 earlier suggestions and emendations. 19.  For such materialist explanations, see, e.g., Tigay, Deuteronomy, 202. 20.  Regardless, it is not difficult to divide a field into separate planting zones based on species. Cf. the discussions in m. Kil. 1–2, which have as one of their bases the desire to minimize the farmer’s losses. 21.  A mule for carrying loads: 2 Kgs 5:17; 1 Chr 12:41; a mule for riding: 2 Sam 13:29; 18:9; 1 Kgs 1:33, 38, 44; Isa 66:20. See also: 1 Kgs 10:25; 2 Chr 9:24 (a gift to a king); Ezek 27:14 (in the context of merchandise from Beth-togarmah). The

V

The Relationship

147

perhaps, a cultural one.22 It therefore seems that the use of the noun pered in the Bible does not necessarily refer specifically to a mule as opposed to a hinny. The distinct advantages of the hinny and the mule vis-à-vis the weaker donkey and the more expensive horse (who tends to be a selective eater23) have led to the diverse use of mules and hinnies even in the modern era.24 Indeed, research offers unequivocal data suggesting that the mule and hinny’s fitness and endurance in hot climatic conditions exceed both those of the donkey and the horse.25 As mules and hinnies are sterile—a fact known to (and even alluded to by) the biblical writers26—a ban on producing such hybrids would have had a negative and farreaching impact on the prosperity of a farmer in the biblical period. A similar sequence of three prohibitions appears in Deuteronomy: “You shall not sow your vineyard with a second kind of seed, else the crop—from the seed you have sown—and the yield of the vineyard may not be used. You shall not plow with an ox and an ass together. You shall not wear cloth combining wool and linen together” (22:9–11).27 The physical advantages of the mule and its popularity were already emphasized in antiquity, see especially Philo, The Special Laws 3.47. 22.  McLean et al., “Comparing,” 4–5; the mule and hinny have been presented as distinct from each other in physiology and temperament. That being said, empirical findings rule-out such a conception. See ibid. 23.  The mule and hinny (as well as the donkey) have more efficient digestive systems than that of the horse. Thus, the mule hinny copes better with low-fiber and high-fiber foods; see F. Burden, “Practical Feeding and Condition Scoring for Donkeys and Mules,” Equine Veterinary Education 24 (2012): 589–96; McLean et al., “Comparing,” 7–8. 24.  For instance: the mule corps in the early twentieth century and in World War I. 25.  Ahmed B. A. Ali et al., “Welfare Assessment Scoring System for Working Equids: A Method for Identifying at Risk Populations and for Monitoring Progress of Welfare Enhancement Strategies (Trialed in Egypt),” Applied Animal Behaviour Science 176 (2016): 52–62; idem, “Are Mules or Donkeys Better Adapted for Egyptian Brick Kiln Work? (Until We Can Change the Kiln),” Journal of Veterinary Behavior 10 (2015): 158–65. 26.  This can be seen from the prophetic admonition: “For they themselves have relations [yǝfārēdû] with whores” (Hos 4:14)—the verb yǝfārēdû seems to be derived from the word pered and it indicates having sexual intercourse with no intention of bearing offspring; see Shlomo Morag, Studies on Biblical Hebrew (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1996 [Hebrew]), 97. Accordingly, cases of mules bearing offspring are considered miraculous; cf. “The Life of Galba,” 4: Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, The Life of the Twelve Caesars (LCL, 1914). 27.  For details regarding the affinities and differences between Lev 19:19 and Deut 22:9–11, see Michael A. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel

148

Human Interaction with the Natural World

prohibitions on mixed-sowing and mixed-garments are expressed here using a different formulation from that employed in Leviticus. Here only sowing seeds in a kerem, that is, in a vineyard (e.g., Deut 23:25; Amos 9:14) is prohibited. It is difficult to determine unequivocally whether this wording proscribes all sowing between the rows of vine—that is, the very act of planting another plant-species next to a vine is considered kil’ayîm—or whether the prohibition applies only to sowing two species of plants between rows of vine.28 As for the prohibition of ša‘atnēz, Deuteronomy—unlike Leviticus—specifies which specific materials may not be mixed. These distinctions notwithstanding, the two prohibitions conform to the spirit of those delineated in Leviticus 19. By contrast, the gulf between the prohibition of “You shall not plow with an ox and an ass together” and that of “You shall not let your cattle mate with a different kind” is notable. Whereas the prohibition in Leviticus is centered around breeding, the law in Deuteronomy addresses an act of mixed plowing. Widening the gap between the two laws is the fact that the two animals specified—a bull and an ass—cannot be crossbred at all. Throughout history, traditional exegetes have sought to draw the three prohibitions of Deuteronomy closer to those of Leviticus. Among other things, some have sought to explain why mixed plowing is a first step towards interbreeding.29 These are, however, quite forced solutions.

(Oxford: Clarendon, 1985), 58–63, and in modern commentaries on Leviticus and Deuteronomy. As scholars have not taken into account the fact that the prohibition on animal hybridization, practically speaking, refers only to breeding horses and donkeys, they have reached conclusions different than those discussed here. 28.  See y. Kil. 8:1 (31b), and see the reading of the Septuagint on the verse (see n. 44, below). Basing themselves on the expression kerem zāyit (Judg 15:5), some have argued that the word kerem in Deuteronomy may denote not just a vineyard but an olive grove as well; see, e.g., R. David Kimchi, Book of Roots [Sefer ha-shorashim] (New York: N/A, 1948), 170–71; Menahem Z. Kaddari, A Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew (Jerusalem: Bar Ilan, 2006 [Hebrew]), 533. If this is the case, the law may be proscribing planting grapes and olives in a single plot of land. It seems, however, that the correct reading of the verse in Judges is to be found in the Septuagint and Vulgate: “vineyards and olive groves.” 29.  For example: “the Merciful One forbade plowing with two species [of animals]—lest he make them familiar with each other and breed them with each other” (Yosef Bekhor Shor on Deut 22:10); “It also seems to me that the reason for the prohibition against bringing together two species for any kind of work may also be found in the wish to render more difficult the interbreeding of two species […] due to the possibility that if the two are brought together they might sometimes copulate” (Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed, III, 49 [ed. Shlomo Pines; Chicago:

V

The Relationship

149

I wish to argue that the prohibition of “You shall not plow with an ox and an ass together” represented an attempt to directly contend with the prohibition on interbreeding—which, due to its concrete impact on agricultural life, likely met with some opposition. This was accomplished by formulating a new law that would subtly and cleverly echo the formulation of an earlier law code—one that may not have been much different in its wording from the prohibition as it is articulated in Lev 19:19. Specifying a bull and an ass more clearly defines the vague term behemteka, and preserves, in the guise of two animals walking together along a single furrow, the imagery of mating. The image of plowing, drawn from the realities of day-to-day life, corrects that of crossbreeding, which, as mentioned, was only practically applicable to horses and donkeys. The choice to specify the act of plowing preserves something of the sexual connotations of interbreeding, or at the very least the notion of inappropriate contact between distinct species (cf. “had you not plowed with my heifer,” Judg 14:18).30 The choice to mention a donkey next to a bull is certainly not accidental and should not be construed as reflecting the routine of plow work during the era.31 Fields were plowed primarily by bulls (cf. 1 Kgs 19:19–21; Prov 14:4). This is no less true today in the modern Levant where bulls are used by farmers who lack access to motorized farm equipment. The use of mules and hinnies for plowing is also common. Photos from the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries attest to combined plowing with a bull and a mule/hinny. As for a donkey, while one certainly can harness it to a plow—and when alternatives are lacking this is what a farmer will do—the donkey’s limited physical strength will make sustained labor difficult. Indeed, in Job 1:14, a realistic agricultural picture is painted in which the plowing of bulls is contrasted to the grazing of she-asses: “The bulls were plowing and the she-asses were grazing alongside them.”32 It can thus be argued that the University of Chicago Press, 1963], 609). In modern scholarship similar parallels between the two laws have been drawn; see, e.g., Andrew D. H. Mayes, Deuteronomy (Greenwood: Attic, 1979), 308. 30.  See the commentaries of Gersonides and Abarbanel on Judg 14:18; and for modern scholars, see James L. Crenshaw, Samson: A Secret Betrayed, a Vow Ignored (Atlanta: John Knox, 1978), 119. 31.  Cf. m. Kil. 5:7: “common practice,” and Jan A. Wagenaar, “ ‘You Shall Not Sow Two Kinds of Seed in Your Field’: Leviticus 19,19 and the Formation of the Holiness Code,” ZABR 7 (2001): 318–31 (321). 32.  Some have suggested that the different animals participated in different parts of the plowing: the she-ass was used to transport the plow to the field, but the plowing itself was performed by the bull. See A. Chacham, The Book of Job (Jerusalem: ha-Rav Kook, 1995 [Hebrew]), 4 n. 9*. For further mentions of donkeys and bulls in

150

Human Interaction with the Natural World

mention of a donkey yoked together with a bull in Deuteronomy may be an attempt to echo an earlier prohibition against interbreeding horses and donkeys—an act which, as mentioned, is the substance of the general interdiction against hybridization. Exegetes and scholars have sought the underlying logic of the prohibition on mixed plowing without reference to the prohibition on hybridization. Attention has been drawn to the physiological disparity between the bull and the donkey. Some have even suggested that the prohibition represents a form of compassion for living beings (in the spirit of other laws and prohibitions to which exegetes and scholars have ascribed such an element).33 It should be noted in this context that with the exception of the prohibition, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it is threshing” (Deut 25:4), all the other laws which supposedly promote compassion for living beings present a much clearer picture of cruelty and killing.34 It should further be noted that there is no real reason to assume that joint plowing using a bull and a donkey will cause either one of them any real harm—neither to the weaker donkey nor to the stronger bull. The most one can say is that harnessing two animals with disparate physical abilities to a single plow is less advisable than using two animals with equal strength; in the former case, the plow will veer in

the Bible, see among others Gen 32:5; Exod 20:14; Isa 1:3; 30:24; 22:20 etc. None of these cases, however, refer to joint plowing. The reference to a “calf plowing” (see above n. 30) is merely poetic language. 33.  Cf. “the Lord has compassion on all of his creations, for the power of the donkey is not like that of the bull,” Abraham Ibn Ezra to Deut 22:10, cf. Midrash Aggadah of Aleppo [me-Aram Tzova], ed. Shlomo Buber (Jerusalem: Machon ha-Ktav, 1996), 203; “inflicting pain upon animals is prohibited according to the Torah. And it is known that species of animals and fowl are greatly concerned about dwelling with [animals] of other species—certainly to perform labor with them,” Book of Education [Sefer ha-chinuch], 550, and among modern scholars cf. Arie Noordtzij, Leviticus, trans. R. Togtman (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 200. Explanations in this spirit have also been developed in symbolic and kabbalistic directions; see Joseph Dan, History of Jewish Mysticism and Esotericism, vol. 12 (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center, 2018), 338–42. 34.  Cf. Exod 23:19 (=Exod 34:26 and Deut 14:21); Lev 22:27–28; Deut 22:4, 6–7—to be clear, this is far from a matter of consensus (I for one do not agree with this approach), but nevertheless the notion that these laws express compassion for living creatures is an oft-repeated one. For a collection of relevant examples, see Yael Shemesh, “Compassion for Animals in Midrashic Literature and Traditional Biblical Exegesis,” Studies in Bible and Exegesis 8 (2008): 677–99 (Hebrew).

V

The Relationship

151

the direction of the stronger animal. The prohibition, to my mind at least, seems to have no ethical component, and at best embodies a logic of productivity; perhaps something resembling the proverb: “Mind well the looks of your flock, pay attention to the herds” (Prov 27:23), or the Babylonian advice: “Take thought for your livestock, remember the plowing [e-re-šá].”35 In this vein, a Roman advice for farmers: “The proper kind of ox to be purchased for ploughing: they should be powerful and equally matched, so that the stronger will not excuse the weaker when they work together.”36 The prohibition is largely consistent with some scholars’ overall characterization biblical wisdom literature: practical knowledge about life and the world based on human experience.37 And if this is true, the formulation of advice for agricultural productivity as an apodictic law, is surely an artificial literary device.38 The three prohibitions in Deuteronomy 22 adhere to a distinct structural pattern: “You shall not sow,” “you shall not plow,” “you shall not wear.” Specifically, the prohibition on plowing with an bull and a donkey is cast in the pattern of the prohibition on ša‘atnēz which immediately follows it: “You shall not plow with an ox and an ass together” // “You shall not wear cloth combining wool and linen together.” It is no coincidence that the prohibition on mixed-plowing lies between the prohibition on sowing mixed-seeds and wearing mixed clothing (unlike in Lev 19 where prohibition pertaining to animals appear first). The meticulous structuring of the three prohibitions, the stylistic and structural similarity to the prohibition on wearing ša‘atnēz, and the placement of the law in between two others—all of these aim to blur the fact that the prohibition of mixed-plowing no longer bears any resemblance whatsoever to animal hybridization. This law, in terms of its content as well as its juxtaposition with the other two prohibitions, seems to be largely artificial.

35.  Wilfred G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature (Oxford: Clarendon, 1960), 108–109:14. 36.  Marcus Terentius Varro, On Agriculture 1:XX, ed. William D. Hooper and Harrison B. Ash (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2014), 235. 37.  See especially Gerhard von Rad, Wisdom in Israel (Nashville: Abingdon, 1972), 3–8. 38.  If I am correct, one can perhaps view Deut 22:10 as yet another example of the close affinities between Deuteronomy and biblical Wisdom Literature; cf. Moshe Weinfeld, “The Dependence of Deuteronomy upon Wisdom Literature,” in Yehezkel Kaufmann Jubilee Volume, ed. Menachem Haran (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1960 [Hebrew]), 89–108, especially 97.

152

Human Interaction with the Natural World

A common practice of biblical and Second Temple literature is to oppose an ancient tradition through revision and rewriting.39 The extent or depth of rewriting varies; some satisfied themselves with slight changes, while others took a far heavier hand. The relationship between the contents and language of the new, alternative tradition and those of its ancient predecessor are characteristically complex. Generally speaking, the scope of rewriting can be said to correspond to the reviser’s attitude to the ancient tradition—minor and delicate revisions are indirect evidence of agreement with the broad details of the ancient tradition, while more fundamental acts of rewriting that leave only a loose connection to the earlier tradition are indirect evidence of opposition. The transition from a prohibition on hybridization to a prohibition on mixed plowing seems to be an example of a heavy-handed act of revision. I propose that its purpose is to do away with an unreasonable legal tradition, supplanting it with an alternative. 3. The precise relationship between the laws of the Holiness Code (H) and those of Deuteronomy (D) is one of the more difficult questions in Pentateuchal studies. A very common opinion, formulated in the early nineteenth century (when the Holiness Code was first identified), suggests that the laws of H indicate dependence on those of D.40 In recent years, however, several important scholars have proposed that the direction of influence is the reverse. At the same time, there are some who take a more cautious approach and argue that no indication of direct influence between the two sources can be discerned, and that, instead, elements of a 39.  Extensive scholarship is dedicated to biblical rewriting, encompassing many discussions regarding the definition of the phenomenon (whether it is an exegetical approach or a literary genre), its characteristics, its place in ancient literature—above all in the biblical apocrypha. For an introduction to such discussions, see Jonathan G. Campbell, “Rewritten Bible: A Terminological Reassessment,” in Rewritten Bible After Fifty Years: Texts, Terms, or Techniques? A Last Dialogue with Geza Vermes, ed. József Zsengellér (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 49–81; Molly M. Zahn, Genres of Rewriting in Second Temple Judaism, Scribal Composition and Transmission (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020). 40.  That this is a consensus in scholarship, see specifically Christophe Nihan, “The Holiness Code between D and P: Some Comments on the Function and Significance of Leviticus 17–26 in the Composition of the Torah,” in Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und Deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk, ed. Eckart Otto und Reinhard Achenbach (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 82–83.

V

The Relationship

153

shared legal tradition (or traditions) have been integrated into both D and H independently.41 Comparisons of the laws of kil’ayîm appearing in Lev 19:19 to those appearing in Deut 22:9–11 are generally based on one of the aforementioned approaches. It is especially common for scholars to use the applicability of the two sets of prohibitions to support their respective positions. The prohibitions in Leviticus apply to every animal, every field, and any combination of animal and plant material. Those in Deuteronomy, by contrast, are notably more specific—sowing mixed-seeds in a vineyard, plowing with a bull and a donkey, and wearing a garment composed of wool and linen. Those who assert that H was influenced by D posit that the former extends the scope of the prohibitions delineated in the latter.42 By contrast, according to those who suggest the opposite direction of influence and a different literary purpose, the later D source is refining and interpreting the earlier H source.43 Alongside these two approaches, some have stressed that such differences do not indicate a distinct direction of dependence or development; all they indicate is the existence of a shared legal tradition, formulated independently of (and prior to) both codes, and integrated into both.44 It seems that when it comes to sowing mixed seeds and wearing mixed clothing, it is difficult to present a convincing or agreed-upon direction of development. Indeed, attempts to compare the two sets of laws seem just as likely to lead to one conclusion as the other. By contrast, if my analysis

41.  For multiple studies sorted according to the various scholarly positions, see Jan Joosten, People and Land in the Holiness Code: An Exegetical Study of the Ideational Framework of the Law in Leviticus 17–26 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 10–12; Jeffrey Stackert, Rewriting the Torah: Literary Revision in Deuteronomy and the Holiness Legislation (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 5–10. 42.  For an extensive list of scholars who subscribe to this position, see Nihan, “The Holiness,” 95, and ibid., n. 63. 43.  Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 58–63; Milgrom, Leviticus, 1358. 44.  See, in detail, Schwartz, “The Holiness,” 328. Schwartz’s conclusions regarding the relationship between kil’ayîm prohibitions in Leviticus and those in Deuteronomy mesh with his detailed comparisons between the laws of H and D; see ibid., e.g. 28, 95, 134, 303–4, 348, 361–62, etc. It should be noted that the Septuagint of Lev 19:19 actually does mention a vineyard—“Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with diverse seed.” Unless this is an attempt to harmonize (or close the distance between) Lev 19:19 with Deut 22:10, it may be that mention of a vineyard was part of the earlier legal tradition common to both sources, and that the differences between Leviticus and Deuteronomy regarding sowing mixed seed do not represent an important or intentional development.

154

Human Interaction with the Natural World

above is correct, and the prohibition on hybridization is only practically relevant to the breeding of horses with donkeys, then a comparison of this prohibition to that of plowing with a bull and a donkey indicates a far clearer direction of development. It can be argued that the prohibition on plowing with a bull and donkey is an attempt to abrogate the prohibition on interbreeding—which is different from its parallels because it directly impedes on a farmer’s prosperity. By contrast, it would be difficult to describe the relationship between the two prohibitions as developing in the opposite direction. This is not to say that the prohibitions of kil’ayîm in Deuteronomy are based directly on those in Leviticus 19. But it is possible, in accordance with the scholarship mentioned above, that the two law codes are based on a common legal tradition; and, if this is the case, one can propose that the prohibition on animal-kil’ayîm within this theoretical Vorlage was articulated similarly to that currently appearing in Lev 19:19.

Chapter 12

A

, F R

T L

C N A

B

R 17:16–26 17

:

Atar Livneh

Composed in the land of Israel at the end of the first century or beginning of the second century CE, Biblical Antiquities (Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum; henceforth: LAB) unfolds Israelite history from the creation of the world to the death of Saul.1 Although no copy of the Hebrew original has survived, a Latin translation was (re)discovered by Leopold Cohn at the end of the nineteenth century.2 Remaining relatively neglected thereafter, the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls prompted renewed interest in the work. In his 1961 monograph, Géza Vermes observed that LAB shares some features with several Qumran texts—in particular the Genesis Apocryphon and Jubilees. All three texts retelling biblical narratives utilizing techniques such as omissions, additions, and paraphrases, are labeled by Vermes as “Rewritten Bible.”3 While offering different * I am indebted to Harald Samuel and Ivor Ludlam for their comments on an earlier version of this paper. 1.  For the date and provenance of LAB, see Howard Jacobson, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum with Latin Text and English Translation, 2 vols., AGJU 31 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 1:199–211. LAB quotations follow ibid. (vol. 1) with minor modifications. Citations from the Hebrew Bible follow the NRSV. 2.  Leopold Cohn, “An Apocryphal Work Ascribed to Philo of Alexandria,” JQR 10 (1898): 277–332. It is widely accepted that the Latin was translated from a Greek version that has not been preserved, rather than from the Hebrew original; see Jacobson, Commentary, 1:215–24. 3.  Géza Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies, 2nd ed., SPB 4 (Leiden: Brill, 1973), 67–126; idem, “Biblical Midrash,” in The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.–A.D. 135) by Emil Schürer, ed.

156

Human Interaction with the Natural World

definitions for this category—initially speaking of this as an “exegetical process” and only subsequently designating it a “genre”—he consistently understood it as a type of biblical interpretation.4 This view has dominated the field for many years, being reflected also in Fishbane’s analysis of dozens of rewritten scriptural passages within the Hebrew Bible under the title Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (1985).5 Highly influential, his method and terminology relating to the compositional techniques for rewriting Scripture were later applied to late Second Temple period Jewish compositions that do not form part of the Hebrew canon—such as LAB.6 The blurring of the (artificial) border between inner-biblical and post-biblical interpretation prompted scholars to regard the compositional techniques employed by LAB—whether implicitly or explicitly—as forming part of the “Jewish hermeneutical toolbox” that extends back to the Hebrew Bible. This perspective is reflected in Jacobson’s analysis of LAB’s custom of referring briefly to a (single) incident within an account of a later historical event in order to draw an (explicit or implicit) analogy between the two cases (the Israelite women in Egypt and Tamar [LAB 9:1–7] and

Géza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Martin Goodman, 3 vols. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986), 3.1:308–41. The precise definition of the term is still widely discussed, the pendulum more recently appearing to have swung back towards Vermes’s original view: see Jonathan G. Campbell, “Rewritten Bible: A Terminological Reassessment,” in Rewritten Bible after Fifty Years: Texts, Terms or Techniques? A Last Dialogue with Geza Vermes, ed. Józef Zsengellér, JSJSup 166 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 49–81; cf. Molly M. Zahn, Genres of Rewriting in Second Temple Judaism: Scribal Composition and Transmission (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020)—who notes: “Rewriting comprises a set of strategies for textual manipulation that could be deployed across…genres for many different purposes” (196). I am indebted to her for sharing her work with me prior to publication. 4.  For the framing of “Rewritten-Bible” as biblical interpretation and the difficulties this creates, see Zahn, Genres of Rewriting, 206–11; cf. also her earlier criticism of the use of the term “exegetical techniques” in the context of the rewriting of Scripture: Molly M. Zahn, Rethinking Rewritten Scripture: Composition and Exegesis in the 4QReworked Pentateuch Manuscripts, STDJ 95 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 12–17. 5.  Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985). 6.  See especially Bruce N. Fisk, Do You Not Remember? Scripture, Story and Exegesis in the Rewritten Bible of Pseudo-Philo, JSPSup 37 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001); Daniel Falk, The Parabiblical Texts: Strategies for Extending the Scriptures among the Dead Sea Scrolls, Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 8, LSTS 63 (New York: T&T Clark, 2007).

L

Almonds, Flocks and Classical Rhetoric

157

Jephthah’s daughter and Isaac [LAB 40:2], for example).7 Identifying this device as a “flashback,” Jacobson argues that “in its essence this is a biblical phenomenon, for biblical figures often speak of past events… (Gen 48:3–7, 1 Sam 12:6–11)…” While observing that “whereas it is merely a passing phenomenon in the Bible, it is a rather sophisticated and important narrative technique in LAB,” he fails to explain why LAB employs it so extensively or whether the technique originates with its author.8 I suggest that (at least) some of these references to historical events constitute historical examples—a common literary device in the Roman world.9 Ancient rhetoricians frequently employed these as forms of proof, serving to demonstrate a general rule or prompt an induction from one particular to another on the basis of their shared elements.10 The exemplum also functions as a model of edification or deterrence or to add an aesthetic, ornamental value.11 Although all these usages already existed in 7.  Brief references to historical events that do not form an integral part of a lengthy historical continuum are common in LAB; see 12:1; 16:1–3; 17:1–4; 19:11– 12; 20:6; 24:6; 25:9; 26:2; 39:4; 41:1; 43:5; 45:2; 47:1; 49:8; 50:2; 53:2; 54:2; 57:2; 59:4–5; 61:2. 8.  Jacobson, Commentary, 1:240–41. 9.  While analyzing some cases in detail and highlighting their hermeneutical nature, Fisk (Do You Not Remember?) does not adduce their classical rhetorical background. Despite Jacobson’s acknowledgment that some of LAB’s linguistic elements, imagery and rhetoric “smack of Greco-Roman influence” (Commentary, 1:214), the text employs more classical rhetoric than he appears to have recognized. See also Margaret Alexiou and Peter Dronke, “The Lament of Jephtha’s Daughter: Themes, Traditions, Originality,” Studi Medievali 12 (1971): 819–63; Howard Jacobson, “Marginalia to Pseudo-Philo’s ‘Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum’ and to the ‘Chronicles of Jerahmeel,’ ” REJ 143 (1983): 455–59 (456). 10.  Aristotle (Rhet. 2.20) divides the exemplum into two principal classes—historical and invented, the latter comprising fables and comparisons. Later rhetoricians confined the device exclusively to historical events and figures, categorizing it as a sub-type of comparison (similitudo or comparabile): cf. Cicero, Inv. 1.49; Quintilian, Inst. 5.11.1; Kristoffel Demoen, “A Paradigm for the Analysis of Paradigms: The Rhetorical Exemplum in Ancient and Imperial Greek Theory,” Rhetorica 15 (1997): 126–27, 138–39. 11.  See, e.g., Demoen, “A Paradigm for the Analysis of Paradigms,” 129–33; Frederick A. Brenk, “Setting a Good Exemplum: Case Studies in the Moralia, the Lives as Case Studies,” in The Unity of Plutarch’s Work: ‘Moralia’ Themes in ‘Lives’, Features of the ‘Lives’ in the ‘Moralia’, ed. Anastasios G. Nikolaides, Millennium Studies 19 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008), 237–45; James M. Petitfils, Mos Christianorum: The Moral Discourse of Exemplarity and the Jewish and Christian Language of Leadership (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 17–46.

158

Human Interaction with the Natural World

Greek literature, the moral dimension played a prominent role in Roman education and socialization.12 In the late republican and early imperial periods, it took various physical forms—statues, medallions, and so on. It also appeared in literary performances within a variety of genres. One of the most prominent historiographical examples is Livy’s Ab Urbe Condita.13 Like their Roman counterparts, Jewish authors of the period also employed this strategy. Josephus makes extensive use of it in the Jewish Antiquities, for example.14 LAB—a contemporaneous work—likewise contains more than twenty exempla.15 Most of these have still not widely recognized as such, and as such in this study I hope to take a preliminary step in this direction by demonstrating that LAB 17 espouses this rhetorical tradition. This chapter—which has received relatively little scholarly attention to date—retells how the priestly family was chosen (cf. Num 17:16–26[1–11]).16 Adducing the story of Jacob and the freckled flocks (cf. Gen 30:25–43), the human–floral–faunal interchange fits well with 12.  See Clive Skidmore, Practical Ethics for Roman Gentlemen: The Work of Valerius Maximus (Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 1996); Teresa Morgan, Literate Education in the Hellenistic and Roman Worlds (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 144–51; Jane D. Chaplain, Livy’s Exemplary History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000); Sinclair Bell and Inge Lyse Hansen, Role Models in the Roman World: Identity and Assimilation, Supplements to the Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 7 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2008); David C. Urban, “The Use of Exempla from Cicero to Pliny the Younger” (PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 2011), 1–13, 117–66; Rebecca Langlands, Exemplary Ethics in Ancient Rome (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018); Matthew B. Roller, Models from the Past in Roman Culture: A World of Exempla (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018). 13.  For the use and role of the exemplum herein, see Chaplain, Livy’s Exemplary History. 14.  See A.J. 1.281; 2.172–175, 281–283, 348; 3.17–19, 46, 83–88, 317–322; 4.43–47, 154; 5.73; 6.38; 8.46–48, 228, 314; 11.306–308, 322–324; 12.110–113, 182; 13.198; 14.384; 15.130–146, 385; 16.46–57; 19.172–184. Despite the frequent employment of brief historical examples in the Antiquities, the device has received little scholarly attention; see Annette Yoshiko Reed, “The Construction and Subversion of Patriarchal Perfection: Abraham and Exemplarity in Philo, Josephus, and the Testament of Abraham,” JSJ 40 (2009): 185–212; Atar Livneh, Studies in Historical Summaries from the Hellenistic and Early Roman Period, CEBT 95 (Leuven: Peeters, 2019), 53–83; idem, “Moses Proves his Case: Historical Examples in A.J. 4.43–45,” JAJ 12 (2021): 185–204. 15.  For references, see LAB 9:1–7, 40:2 and the list in n. 7 above. 16.  The numbering of the biblical text follows the BHS, the NRSV verses being given in parenthesis—the two differing significantly in the passage in Numbers.

L

Almonds, Flocks and Classical Rhetoric

159

the theme of this volume—to which I am delighted to contribute in honor of Tova Forti’s lifework on animal imagery in the Hebrew Bible.17 1. The Retelling of Numbers 17:16–26(1–11) in LAB 1718 Text 1 Tunc ostensum est genus sacerdotale in electione tribus, et dictum est Moysi: Accipe per duodecim tribus singulas virgas, et pone eas in tabernaculo. Et tunc ad quem locuta fuerit gloria mea ipsius virga floriet, et auferam murmurationem de populo meo. 2 Et fecit sic Moyses, et posuit duodecim virgas. Et processit virga Aaron, et protulit florem, et fecit semen amigdali. 3 Erat autem illa similitudo que tunc nata est similis operi quos operabatur Israel dum esset in Mesopotamia apud Laban Syrum, quando tulit virgas amigdalinas et posuit eas in congregationem aquarum, et veniebant pecora bibere, et dividebantur per virgas decoriatas, et pariebant albos hedos et guttis aspersos et varios. 4 Propterea similis facta est synagoga populi gregi ovium. Et sicut pariebant pecora secundum amigdalinas virgas, sic constitutum est sacerdotium per virgas amigdalinas. 1 Then the identity of the priestly family was revealed by the selection of the tribe. Moses was told, “Take for the twelve tribes one staff apiece and put them in the tent of meeting.19 Then the one to whom my glory will speak, that one’s staff will flower and I will take away the murmuring from my people.” 2 Moses did so, and he deposited the twelve staffs. The staff of Aaron sprouted and flowered and produced seed of almonds. 3 What happened then was similar to the works Israel performed while he was in Mesopotamia20 with Laban the Aramean, when he took almond staffs and put them at the cisterns of water; and the flocks came to drink and were divided according to the peeled staffs, and they brought forth white and speckled and multi-colored kids. 17.  See, e.g., Tova Forti, Animal Imagery in the Book of Proverbs, VTSup 118 (Leiden: Brill, 2008); idem, “Like a Lone Bird on a Roof”: Animal Imagery and the Structure of Psalms, Critical Studies in the Hebrew Bible 10 (University Park: Eisenbrauns, 2018). 18.  With the exception of Jacobson’s commentary (1:24, 117–118, 570–75), LAB 17 has only been the subject of brief, isolated comments. 19.  Jacobson: “tabernacle.” For the translation of tabernaculum in LAB 17:1 as “tent of meeting,” see Daniel J. Harrington, “Pseudo-Philo,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1983), 2:324. 20.  Jacobson: “What happened then was like what Israel did while he was in Mesopotamia.” Like Jacobson, my English translation is not literal.

160

Human Interaction with the Natural World 4 Thus the assembly of the people became similar to the flock of sheep. And as the flocks brought forth according to the almond staffs, so the priesthood was established through almond staffs.

LAB 17 and the “Historical Example” Examining historical examples in classical literature, Demoen concludes that these are neither monolithic in form nor interwoven into the context in precisely the same way. This diversity, he suggests, is due to the presence or absence of four basic elements: (a) an illustrans—that is, a particular incident adduced in order to shed light on (b) an illustrandum—another episode; (c) a conclusion drawn from the comparison between the two; and (d) a linking term or formula. According to this taxonomy, a full exemplum includes all four elements and a minimal exemplum possesses a, b and d—but draws no conclusion from the analogy. A metaphorical exemplum employs the illustrans as a symbol or image of the illustrandum, in some cases even substituting it (element a = element b), the conclusion (element c) merely being implied.21 From a formal perspective, LAB 17 constitutes a full exemplum. The narrative of Jacob and the speckled flocks (v. 3) is the illustrans (element a), the selection of the priestly family comprising the illustrandum (element b).22 The two events are linked via a series of linguistic formulae (element d): “What happened then was similar to the works Israel performed… (Erat autem illa similitudo que tunc nata est similis operi quod operabatur Israel…)” (v. 3 [my emphasis]);23 “And as the flocks brought forth according to the almond staffs, so the priesthood was established through almond staffs” (Et sicut pariebant pecora secundum 21.  Demoen, “A Paradigm for the Analysis of Paradigms,” 144–46. While he employs the term exemplum in a broad sense, including both references to a historical event not linked to the matter at hand and its immediate literary context, it frequently only designates the former (ibid., 126–27). 22.  Although LAB 17 retains the formal elements of the historical example, the conclusion it draws from the comparison between the selection of the priests and Jacob’s speckled flocks does not in fact relate to the priesthood; see below. The terms illustrans and illustrandum are not thus completely appropriate here. Notably, the story of the blossoming almond staff also forms part of the brief retelling of 1 Sam 2–3: see esp. LAB 52:2, 53:9–10; Fredrick J. Murphy, Pseudo-Philo: Rewriting the Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 196–97; Jacobson, Commentary, 2:1114, 1124–25. 23.  The English translation reflects only one of the two simil- words in the Latin version (similitudo [similarity] and similis [similar]).

L

Almonds, Flocks and Classical Rhetoric

161

amigdalinas virgas, sic constitutum est sacerdotium per virgas amigdalinas) (v. 4 [my emphasis]).24 Verse 4 forms the conclusion (element c): “Thus the assembly of the people became like a flock of sheep” (Propterea similis facta est synagoga populi gregi ovium).25 Demoen’s model suggests that the chapter falls into three principal sub-units: vv. 1–2 (illustrandum), v. 3 (illustrans), and v. 4 (conclusion). LAB 17:1–2 The first two verses of the chapter are an abbreviated version of the story of the election of the priesthood in Num 17:16–26(1–11). LAB’s account commences as follows: “Then the identity of the priestly family was revealed by the selection of the tribe” (v. 1). While the vocabulary echoes Num 17:16–26(1–11) and other biblical passages dealing with the election of the priests (e.g., Deut 18:5; 1 Sam 2:28), the statement as a whole is an extra-biblical addition.26 As Jacobson observes, disconnecting this passage from the preceding narrative treating Korah’s rebellion, it presents them as separate incidents.27 The introduction is followed by a clear allusion to the primary biblical source: “Moses was told, ‘Take for the twelve tribes one staff apiece and put them in the tent of meeting. Then the one to whom my glory will speak, that one’s staff will flower and I will take away the murmuring from my people.’ ”28 Here, LAB conjoins details from Num 17:16–17b(1– 2b) and 19–20(4–5), omitting the instructions to write the tribal leaders’ names on the staffs in general (Num 17:17c[2c]) and Aaron’s name in

24.  Cf. the similar formula linking two historical incidents in 2 Macc 2:10: “Just as (καθώς) Moyses prayed to the Lord and fire came down from heaven and ate up the sacrifices, so (οὕτως) also Salomon prayed, and the fire came down and consumed the whole burnt offerings.” 25.  This conclusion is surprising, being neither logically deducible from the analogy nor the conventional type that forms part of an exemplum: see below. 26.  Cf. “…the selection of the tribe (electione tribus)” (LAB 17:1) with Deut 18:5 (cf. Vulg. ad loc.: elegit…de cunctis tribubus tuis) and 1 Sam 2:28 (cf. Vulg. ad loc.: et elegi eum ex omnibus tribubus Israhel). The latter verse is also reworked together with Num 17:16–26(1–11) in LAB 53:8–10 (the episode of Eli’s sons’ iniquity). 27.  Jacobson, Commentary, 1:570–71; cf. also Murphy, Pseudo-Philo, 83–84. In this regard, the current retelling of Num 17:16–26(1–11) differs from its rewriting in LAB 53:9–10, the latter suggesting a causal connection between the events depicted in Num 16:1–17:15(16:1–50) and 17:16–26(1–11). 28.  For the expression “my glory will speak,” see Jacobson, Commentary, 1:571–72.

162

Human Interaction with the Natural World

particular (Num 17:18[3]).29 Skipping over Num 17:21(6), it thus ignores the leaders altogether.30 LAB further abbreviates the biblical story by deleting two secondary clauses—the elaboration of the “tent of meeting” (“where I meet with you” [Num 17:19(4)] and the clarification of the object of the Israelites’ complaints (“that they continually make against you” [Num 17:20(5)]). It likewise omits the temporal and spatial aspects of Num 17:22–23(7–8): “Moses did so, and he deposited the twelve staffs. The staff of Aaron sprouted and flowered and produced seed of almonds” (LAB 17:2).31 Contra these omissions, it retains the signs identifying the priestly lineage: a staff that sprouts, blossoms, and bears fruit despite not being planted (‫והנה פרח מטה אהרן לבית לוי ויצא פרח ויצץ ציץ ויגמל שקדים‬, v. 23[8]). While the biblical text alludes to the latter stage in referring to “ripe almonds” (‫ויגמל שקדים‬, Num 17:23[8]), LAB 17:2 states that the staff “produced the seed of almonds” (fecit semen amigdali). The words fecit…amigdali—paralleled in Targum Ps-Jonathan and Targum Neofiti to Num 17:23(8) (‫—)ועבד לוזין‬reflect the Hebrew ‫ עשה‬as denoting the bearing of fruit (e.g., Gen 1:11–12; 2 Kgs 19:30; Jer 17:8).32 This survey evinces that the majority of the details recorded with regard to the election of the priestly family were carefully chosen so as to include only the information relevant to the context.33 This selective 29.  Cf. Daniel J. Harrington and Jacques Cazeaux, Pseudo-Philon: Les Antiquités Bibliques. Vol. 1: Introduction et texte critiques par Daniel J. Harrington, Sources Chrétiennes 229 (Paris: Cerf, 1976), 147; Harrington, “Pseudo-Philo,” 324; Jacobson, Commentary, 1:571–72. 30.  Num 17:21(6): “Moses spoke to the Israelites; and all their leaders gave him staffs, one for each leader, according to their ancestral houses, twelve staffs; and the staff of Aaron was among theirs.” 31.  While Num 17:22(7) explains where Moses had put the staffs (“before the LORD in the tent of the covenant”), Num 17:23(8) indicates that he returned to the place “the next day.” In omitting the latter detail, LAB ignores an aspect of the “miracle”—namely, the fact that the staffs went from sprouting to bearing fruits within a single night. 32.  The insertion of semen (seed) into the reworking of Num 17:23(8) suggests the (unconscious?) influence of another biblical passage, possibly Gen 1:11–12. For the blending of Num 17:23(8) with flora imagery from other scriptural passages (e.g., Isa 28:1), see LAB 52:2. 33.  Cf. Schmitt’s observation regarding the succinct style of examples arranged in lists: A. Schmitt, “Struktur, Herkunft und Bedeutung der Beispielreihe in Weish 10,” BZ 21 (1977): 18. While Schmitt refers to the relevance of each example to the general principle underlying a series, recent studies point to the ways in which the illustrandum and illustrans are reshaped in forms that enhance the resemblance

L

Almonds, Flocks and Classical Rhetoric

163

approach highlights the affinities between the illustrandum and illustrans (Jacob and the speckled flocks [v. 3]). It stands out even more prominently in the retelling of Gen 30:25–43 in LAB 17:3. LAB 17:3 Having noted that the establishment of the priesthood “was similar to the works Israel performed while he was in Mesopotamia with Laban the Aramean” (vv. 1–2), LAB proceeds to précis Gen 30:25–43 in a brief paragraph: a when he took almond staffs b and put them at the cisterns of water; c and the flocks came to drink d and were divided according to the peeled staffs, e and they brought forth white and speckled and multi-colored kids. (v. 3)34

The first clause is based on Gen 30:37: “Then Jacob took fresh staffs of poplar and almond and plane, and peeled white streaks in them, exposing the white of the staffs.” The only detail common to the account in Numbers 17 and the story of Jacob in Genesis 30 being the almond staffs, LAB omits any mention of the other types of which Jacob made use, as well as the exposure of their paler inner layer.35 The almond staffs are the detail most relevant to the exemplum, LAB 17:4 making clear that they form the peg on which the analogy between the two incidents hangs: “And as the flocks brought forth according to the almond staffs, so the priesthood was established through almond staffs.” Clauses b–c form an abbreviated version of Gen 30:38: “He set the staffs that he had peeled in front of the flocks in the troughs, that is, the watering places, where the flocks came to drink. And since they bred via omission from, addition to, and alteration of earlier traditions pertaining to these historical events; see, e.g., Gowing’s analysis of Marcus Furius Camillus’s juxtapositioning of Achilles, Aeneas, and Themistocles in relation to figures or events in Roman history in imperial-period Greek historiographies: Alain M. Gowing, “The Roman Exempla Tradition in Imperial Greek Historiography: The Case of Camillus,” in The Cambridge Companion to Roman Historiography, ed. Andrew Feldherr (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 332–47; and Roller’s discussion of Publius Horatius Cocles and Cloelia in Livy 2.13.6 (Models from the Past, 66–71). 34.  My numbering. The passage rests directly on Gen 30:37–40; see Harrington, “Pseudo-Philo,” 324; Jacobson, Commentary, 1:572–74, and the detailed discussion below. For the locution “Laban the Aramean,” cf. Gen 25:20, 31:24; Jacobson, Commentary, 1:573. 35.  For the reference in d, see below.

164

Human Interaction with the Natural World

when they came to drink, the flocks bred in front of the staffs.” As in its retelling of Num 17:16–26(1–11), here, too, LAB omits all the details irrelevant to the comparison it seeks to draw—the gloss regarding the watering places (“where the flocks came to drink” [Gen 30:38]) and the note concerning the breeding of the flocks. The peeling of the staffs—alluded to twice in Gen 30:37–38 but absent in clauses a–c—is nonetheless adduced in clause d: “and [the flocks] were divided (et dividebantur) according to the peeled staffs.” This is based on Gen 30:40: “Jacob separated the lambs.”36 While in Genesis this follows the breeding of the flocks in front of the staffs, LAB places it first. Rather than linking the staffs with the breeding of the flocks, LAB connects them with their separation, thereby enhancing the analogy between Num 17:16–26(1–11) and Gen 30:25–43. This suggests that on both occasions the process relates to the splitting of a class into smaller units, leading to the singling out—choosing—of one. Seeking to draw an analogy between the selection of the priestly family and Jacob’s breeding of the speckled flock, LAB thus omits details that confuse this point—either because they suggest that the stories do not in fact correspond (Jacob used various types of staffs—poplar, almond, and plane—and Moses only almond) or because they might distract the reader from the comparable specifications.37

LAB 17:4 The chapter ends with two statements: “Thus the assembly of the people became like a flock of sheep. And as the flocks brought forth according to the almond staffs, so the priesthood was established through almond staffs” (LAB 17:4). While the second clause connects the two incidents by adducing an element common to both—the almond staffs—the structure of the first is more obscure. The connector propterea (“therefore”) indicates that the clause “the assembly of the people became similar to the flock of sheep” serves as the conclusion drawn from the analogy between the two events. This is rather strange in the context of an exemplum; the terms illustrans and illustrandum indicating that one incident within the rhetorical model (here: Jacob’s story) is customarily cited in order to 36.  Cf. Vulg. Gen 30:40: divisitque gregem Iacob. 37.  The specification that Moses and Aaron were the object of Israel’s murmuring (Num 17:20[5]) has no parallel in the story about Jacob and the flocks in Gen 30:25– 43, for example. Not contributing to the analogy between the two narratives, it is superfluous to LAB’s rhetorical purposes.

L

Almonds, Flocks and Classical Rhetoric

165

shed light on another. We would thus expect the conclusion to include the lesson to be learned from the story of the selection of the priestly family— or point to an action the audience is expected to take.38 Instead, we find an etiology explaining the comparison of the people of Israel to a flock—an image common in both the biblical texts (e.g., 2 Sam 24:17; Ezek 34; Zech 11; Ps 78:52) and LAB (on which see more below).39 This identification may in fact have been partially responsible for the initial comparison between the method of selecting the priestly family and Jacob’s breeding of the speckled sheep. Both accounts relate to a magical process conducted via almond staffs, the object of which is a flock—either concrete or figurative. Rather than forming the foundational assumption, however, the analogy between Israel and the flock is inferred from the juxtaposition of two examples. Each of these functions as a premise: Premise a: Premise b: Conclusion:

Israel were divided by means of almond staffs (vv. 1–2; cf. Num 17:16–26[1–11]) The flock was divided via almond staffs (v. 3; cf. Gen 30:25–43) Israel is like a flock (v. 4).40

38.  The conclusion drawn from a historical example may also underscore the credibility of the illustrandum; see, e.g., A.J. 2.348, where Josephus adduces the receding of the Pamphylian Sea before Alexander the Great (illustrans) in the context of the crossing of the Red Sea (illustrandum). 39.  For Israel as a flock in the Hebrew Bible and Qumran, see Waschke, “‫צאן‬,” TDOT 12:197–207, esp. §§ III. 2, IV. This imagery also lies at the heart of the Animal Apocalypse (1 En. 85–90); 4 Ezra 5:26. See Jack W. Vangil, “Sheep, Shepherd,” ABD 5:1190. 40.  Cf. the retelling of Jephthah’s story, in which Israel’s comparison to a dove functions as the major premise within a complex deductive argument, some of whose premises are only implicit (LAB 39:4–5): Israel is like a dove, Jephthah is an Israelite (implicit) Jephthah is thus like a dove (implicit) + Jephthah is like a dove (implicit) A dove forgets the harm done to it Jephthah should therefore forget the injury caused him by his brothers (implicit). Here, however, the two explicit premises are general, the conclusion relating to a particular case. For this passage in light of its biblical background and contemporaneous parallels, see Louis Feldman, “Prolegomenon,” in The Biblical Antiquities of Philo, trans. M. R. James (New York: Ktav, 1971), cxxii; Michael E. Stone, Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress,

166

Human Interaction with the Natural World

In light of this analysis, it becomes clear that although LAB 17 includes all the formal elements typical of Demoen’s full exemplum, the passage is constructed as a three-part deductive argument. It thus constitutes a syllogism.41 The argument in LAB 17 is invalid, however, the conclusion—Israel is like a flock—not being inferable from the premises. It thus constitutes an “apparent syllogism”—that is, an argument that, while presented in the form/style of a syllogism, is in fact not real.42 Although the problematic nature of such arguments may diminish their persuasive force or make them easier to refute, they formed an integral part of the ancient art of rhetoric (cf. Aristotle, Rhet. 2.24.3). While employing this rhetorical strategy, the association of the flock metaphor with the two preceding narratives appears to be rooted in LAB’s understanding of the former. The flock metaphor is predicated upon two mutually determining poles—sheep/shepherd.43 With the exception of LAB 17:4, these are both explicitly adduced wherever the metaphor occurs in LAB. The metaphor is also consistently linked to the theme of Israel’s election. LAB 23:12 notes: “And now, if you heed your forefathers… Your land will be renowned throughout all the world, and your seed elect amidst all people… And so I [God] will plant you like a delightful vine and shepherd you like a lovable flock.”44 LAB 28:4–5, which reports God’s words and the people’s response to it in the days of Cenaz, states:

1990), 130; Mary T. DesCamp, Metaphor and Ideology: Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum and Literary Methods Through a Cognitive Lens, BibInt 87 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 230–32. 41.  See Aristotle, Rhet. 1.1.3; An. post. 1.1. According to Aristotelian terminology, the syllogism employed within a rhetorical context is known as an enthymeme (cf. Aristotle, An. post. 1.1; Rhet. 1.8). Its precise relationship to the dialectical syllogism remains a matter of debate; see Lloyd F. Bitzer, “Aristotle’s Enthymeme Revisited,” in Landmark Essays on Aristotelian Rhetoric, ed. Richard Leo Enos and Lois Peter Agnew, Landmark Essays 14 (Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1998), 179–91. Although the context in LAB 17 is rhetorical, I refer to the deductive reasoning in this Jewish text in terms of a syllogism. 42.  Cf. Aristotle, Rhet. 2.24. 43.  Waschke, ‫צאן‬, §III 2b (p. 204). 44.  Here, the flock/Israel is depicted as “loved” by God, a notion associated with their election (cf. Deut 10:15). For Israel as a “delightful vineyard,” see Isa 27:2 (+ VL ad loc.). For the metaphor of the vine/vineyard in the Hebrew Bible; cf. Isa 5:1–7; Jer 12:10; Ps 80:9–20 et al. For this metaphor elsewhere in LAB, see 12:8; 18:11, 28:4 and 30:5, and Jacobson’s comments ad loc. (Commentary, 1:496–99, 596–97; 2:727–28, 804–7, 834–35).

L

Almonds, Flocks and Classical Rhetoric

167

I [God] will recall the time that was before the world, the time when man did not exist…when I said, “Let the world be created… I will plant a great vineyard, and from it I will choose a plant; and I will transplant it and call it by name, and it will be mine forever.” Although I have done all the things I have said, nevertheless my plant that was called by my name will not recognize me… Cenaz and the elders and all the people lifted up their voices and wept together…and said: “Will the shepherd destroy his flock for no reason, unless it has sinned against him?”45

LAB 30:4–5 likewise employs the flock metaphor in conjunction with that of the vineyard, also speaking of Israel as God’s lot.46 However, the most explicit connection between the flock metaphor and Israel’s election appears in Jael’s prayer: When Sisera had fallen asleep, Jael went out to the flock and got milk from it. When she was milking, she said: “Behold now, remember, Lord, when you distributed all peoples and nations of the earth, did you not choose Israel alone [cf. Deut 32:8–9] and liken it to no animal except to the ram that goes before and leads the flock? Look therefore and see that Sisera has made a plan and said, ‘I will go and destroy the flock of the Lord.’ I will take from the milk of these animals to which you have likened your people, and I will go and give him to drink. When he has drunk, he will go weary, and afterwards I will kill him.” (LAB 31:5)

As Jacobson notes, the metaphor carries two meanings here. Towards the end of the prayer, Jael likens Israel to a flock in general (“the milk of these animals to which you have likened your people”).47 Earlier, however, the term relates humanity as a whole, Israel forming a genus thereof—that is, the leading ram.48 The sequence suggests that Israel’s special status is due

45.  For a detailed discussion of this passage, see Murphy, Pseudo-Philo, 131–32; Jacobson, Commentary, 2:804–8. 46.  LAB 30:5 refers to Israel as both sheep led to slaughter (cf. esp. Isa 53:7) and God’s flock whom he leads—i.e., to their becoming God’s people and his guidance in the desert (cf. Ps 77:21). For the biblical background of LAB 30:4–5, see Feldman, “Prolegomenon,” cxvi; Murphy, Pseudo-Philo, 138–39; Jacobson, Commentary, 2:835–57. For juxtaposition of the sheep metaphor with the imagery of Israel as God’s lot, cf. Mic 7:14; Pss 28:9; 78:71. 47.  For the flock as representing human beings in general, see Sir 18:13; Jacobson, Commentary, 2:851–52. For the dual meaning of the sheep metaphor in this passage and its possible implications for Jael’s characterization, see DesCamp, Metaphor and Ideology, 225–30. 48.  For the imagery of Israel as the leading ram, see Jer 50:8.

168

Human Interaction with the Natural World

to divine election: “when you [God] distributed all peoples and nations of the earth, did you not choose Israel alone and liken it to no animal except to the ram that goes before and leads the flock?” Israel thus constitutes a sub-group of the flock, chosen by God to be his possession.49 Hereby, the catalyst for LAB’s association of the “flock” metaphor with the story of Jacob’s separating a sub-group of the sheep becomes clear.50 While the account of the election of the priestly family shares no faunal features with the flock metaphor, according to LAB’s understanding of the latter the theme of divine election is inherent in both. While each of the biblical narratives thus represents a different feature of the flock, the thread that weaves through them is the singling out of a specific group. Conclusion Like previous studies of LAB, the above analysis illustrates the extent to which this Roman-period Jewish historiography draws on Scripture. LAB 17:1–3 is largely based on Num 17:17–23(2–8) and Gen 30:37–40, texts it frequently cites verbatim. However, its selective approach, juxtaposition of incidents, additional (non-biblical) statements (v. 4), and chapter structure as a whole are all best understood in light of classical rhetorical devices. The brief reference to a past event (Jacob and the speckled flock [v. 3])—which does not form part of the matter under discussion—serves as an exemplum, a common Roman literary device. Seeking to enhance the similarity between the election of the priestly family and Jacob’s breeding of the speckled flock, LAB omits details that confuse this—either because they suggest that the stories do not in fact correspond (i.e., Jacob used the staffs for breeding and Moses for singling out a group) or because they might divert the reader’s attention from the analogies.

49.  Cf. 4 Ezra 5:26: “…and from all the birds you have created, thou hast named for yourself one dove, and from all the flocks that have been made, thou has accepted for thyself one sheep, and from all the multitude of peoples, thou has gotten for thyself one people…” (Stone, 4 Ezra, 125). For this passage, see ibid.; Matthias Henze, “The Chosenness of Israel in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” in The Call of Abraham: Essays on the Election of Israel in Honor of Jon D. Levenson, ed. Gary A. Anderson and Joel S. Kaminsky (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2013), 170–98 (183–84). 50.  The verb ‫“( הפריד‬separate”) denotes the division of both sheep (Gen 30:40) and humanity (Deut 32:8).

L

Almonds, Flocks and Classical Rhetoric

169

In addition to assimilating the two stories via omissions and other changes to the biblical text, LAB explicitly compares them by means of linking formulae such as sicut…sic… (“just as…so…” [v. 4]; cf. also v. 2). These are typical of classical historical examples. According to Demoen’s model, the latter consist of four elements: an illustrans, an illustrandum, a word or formula linking the two, and a conclusion drawn from the comparison. Although LAB 17 possesses all those components from a formal perspective, the conclusion in v. 4—“Thus the assembly of the people became like the flock of sheep”—deviates from the typical exemplum convention, rather constituting an etiology explaining the common “biblical” image of Israel as a flock. This rests on a juxtaposition of the two stories, each of which functions as a premise: Israel is divided by almond staffs (Num 17 [cf. LAB 17:1–2]); the flock is separated by almond staffs (Gen 30 [cf. LAB 17:3]); Israel thus resembles a flock (LAB 17:4). While the sequence follows the typical form of a syllogism, the argument is invalid. The association of the flock metaphor with the two narratives appears rather to derive from LAB’s understanding of the former. Intimately related to the notion of election, the flock metaphor infers that the priestly family were the “few chosen” from the “many called.”

Chapter 13

T

T

F S

S

/O

I

David A. Glatt-Gilad

The impetus for my choice of topic to honor my dear friend and colleague Tova Forti stemmed from the negative connotations that the “lamb to slaughter” imagery had on the Israeli national psyche in the early days of the State of Israel. The reigning national mythology at the time sought to celebrate the heroic, fighting spirit of the “new Jew,” as opposed to the putative pathetic passivity of diaspora Jews, who generation after generation, culminating in the Holocaust, went to their deaths “like lambs to slaughter.”1 As a daughter of Holocaust survivors, Tova grew up in the shadow of that horrific event and surely realized early on how the reigning collective characterization of European Jewish victims was both unfair and distorted.2 As it turns out, the biblical sources that employ the sheep/ox to slaughter imagery yield a surprising elasticity of nuance that more than once paints a sympathetic picture of the victim(s). The purpose 1.  To this day, Holocaust Remembrance Day in Israel, the official name of which is “Remembrance Day for the Holocaust and the Heroism,” is marked to correspond with the anniversary of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising—an event that was once regarded as an exceptional military resistance to an otherwise passive Jewish response to the Holocaust. Some early voices who came out against the prevailing narrative were Nathan Alterman and Abba Kovner, for whom see Dalia Ofer, “The Strength of Remembrance: Commemorating the Holocaust during the First Decade of Israel,” Jewish Social Studies 6, no. 2 (2000): 42–44. 2.  For corrective scholarship on the matter, see, for example, Bernhard H. Rosenberg, “They Went Like Sheep to the Slaughter and Other Myths,” in Contemplating the Holocaust, ed. Bernhard H. Rosenberg and Chaim Z. Rozwaski (Northvale: Jason Aronson, 1999), 17–21; Richard Middleton-Kaplan, “The Myth of Jewish Passivity,” in Jewish Resistance Against the Nazis, ed. Patrick Henry (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2014), 3–26.

G

-G

The Thematic Functions of the Sheep/Ox

171

of this brief tribute to Professor Forti is to flesh out the specific thematic connotations of the biblical sheep/ox to slaughter imagery, ranging from purposeful passivity (Isa 53), to an expression of outraged helplessness (Ps 44), to misplaced trust—both justified (Jer 11) and unjustified (Prov 7).3 Isaiah 53 The major questions relating to this perhaps most studied text in the Hebrew Bible are well known and need only to be mentioned here without being rehearsed in full: What are the identities of the servant and of those describing him? Did he die an actual death? Can his suffering be properly described as “vicarious”?4 Whereas these questions may not have clear-cut answers, one thing is certain for our purposes, namely that of all the lamb/ox to slaughter passages to be examined, this is the only one that explicitly links the imagery to passivity or lack of protest in the face of abuse. As stated in v. 7—“He was maltreated, yet he was submissive, he did not open his mouth; like a sheep being led to slaughter, like an ewe dumb before those who shear her, he did not open his mouth.”5 Yet the full significance of this description is far from obvious. For example, is one justified to see here an expression of the nobility of suffering in silence while accepting God’s seemingly unjustified punishment? On the one hand, as Heschel correctly notes: “Second Isaiah does not passively accept Zion’s lot. Far from being silent, he challenges the Lord…”6 On the other hand, the servant’s passivity to suffering is not limited to the description of his evident silence in Isa 53:7 and already appears previously in Isa 50:6—“I offered my back to the floggers and my cheeks to those who tore out my hair. I did not hide my face from insult and spittle.” This latter passage, in which one hears the voice of the servant himself,

3.  This paper will not examine the ‫ צאן ההרגה‬prophecy in Zech 11:4ff. since the term ‫ טבח‬does not appear there, as it does in the texts that I include. 4.  The secondary literature is vast. For a succinct treatment of these issues, as well as Isa. 53’s relationship to the other “servant songs” and the roots of the New Testament’s understanding of the passage, see Hans G. Reventlow, “Basic Issues in the Interpretation of Isaiah 53,” in Jesus and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins, ed. William H. Bellinger, Jr. and William R. Farmer (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1998), 23–38. 5.  Translations follow the NJPS. 6.  Abraham J. Heschel, The Prophets: An Introduction (New York: Harper & Row, 1962), 146–47, followed by quotes from Isa 40:27; 49:14; 63:15; 64:7–11.

172

Human Interaction with the Natural World

continues with the servant’s confident proclamation of his complete trust in God—“But the Lord God will help me, therefore I feel no disgrace; therefore I have set my face like flint, and I know I shall not be shamed” (Isa 50:7).7 That some positive trait is being imputed to the silent servant in Isa 53:7 can also be derived from the contrast with the negative sheep imagery attached to the speakers in the previous verse—“We all went astray like sheep, each going his own way, and the Lord visited upon him the guilt of all of us” (Isa 53:6). Thus, the speakers’ going astray like sheep alludes to their sins, whereas the servant’s silent submission like a sheep bespeaks his acceptance of a seemingly undeserved fate.8 Nevertheless, it seems to me that treating the servant’s silent passivity as a personal virtue does not do justice to the overall thrust of the context as a whole (Isa 52:13–53:12). The overriding contrast of the passage is not between the servant and his adversaries, but rather between the servant’s former/present miserable state and his future exalted state. In that light, the portrayal of the servant as so numb to suffering that he doesn’t even respond heightens his state of utter misery, so as to render his miraculous restoration all the more remarkable.9 The true actor in this drama is the God of Israel, who, to the astonishment of all beholders, transforms the downtrodden servant, who was all but taken for dead,10 into an exalted figure whose very presence evokes wonder. Thus, the silent passivity of the servant, who refrains from opening his mouth like the sheep being led to slaughter, functions as an element that further underscores God’s purposeful plan of wondrous, unexpected redemption. 7.  Thus, the speaker’s voice in Isa 50:6–7 can be contrasted with Isaiah 53, in which the only implicit “I” voice is that of God himself; see David J. A. Clines, I, He, We, They: A Literary Approach to Isaiah 53, JSOTSup 1 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1976), 37–38. 8.  Similarly John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 40–66, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 390–91. 9.  The Holocaust analogy can thus be turned on its head. Far from the victims being viewed as acceding to their own demise, the lesson to be learned can be that despite the victims being completely dehumanized, they nevertheless achieved an extraordinary transformation. 10.  For this interpretation (as opposed to the servant having actually died), I follow R. N. Whybray, Thanksgiving for a Liberated Prophet: An Interpretation of Isaiah Chapter 53, JSOTSup 4 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1978), 79–106; Shalom M. Paul, Isaiah 40–66: Translation and Commentary, Eerdmans Critical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 408.

G

-G

The Thematic Functions of the Sheep/Ox

173

Psalm 44 The communal lament found in Psalm 4411 is certainly among the most poignant of its kind and its use of the sheep to slaughter imagery could hardly be more different than in Isaiah 53. Whereas Isaiah 53 speaks of the victim in the third person as one who suffers his fate in silence, Psalm 44 gives voice to the cries of the victims themselves, who continually proclaim their innocence and place the blame for their state of helplessness on God. The vocal protest against God, who gave the people over like “sheep to be devoured” (v. 12) and “sheep to be slaughtered” (v. 23), is loud and clear. The people, for their part, maintained their allegiance to God both before disaster struck them (vv. 5–9) as well as during the throes of the crisis (vv. 18–19). The people go so far as to challenge God to probe the sincerity of their devotion, for it is he who knows the secrets of the human heart (vv. 21–22). Confident that God will not be able to find any flaw in their belief, the people declare: “It is for Your sake that we are slain all day long, that we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered” (v. 23).12 From a broader, intertextual perspective, this state of affairs represents an astounding accusation against God, who has essentially abdicated his role of protecting his flock. The book of Psalms is not lacking in references to Israel as God’s flock, with God in the role of shepherd (e.g., Pss 79:13; 80:2; 95:7; 100:3). In essence, then, God has fallen asleep on the job—“Rouse Yourself, why do You sleep, O Lord? Awaken, do not reject us forever!” (Ps 44:24).13 He is essentially no better than the fallible human leaders of the people, who also proved to be unfaithful shepherds (cf. Jer 23:1–4; Ezek 34), and for that matter, no better than pagan gods who sleep while their devotees are calling out in distress (cf. 1 Kgs 18:27). In sum, the sheep to slaughter imagery in Psalm 44 can best be characterized as an expression of outraged helplessness stemming from God’s perceived abandonment. Although in the long history of Jewish interpretation, v. 23 has often been cited as reflective of Jewish stoicism in the face

11.  For the genre classification, see Hermann Gunkel, The Psalms: A FormCritical Introduction, trans. Thomas M. Horner, Biblical Series 19 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967), 32. 12.  Cf. the various Assyrian kings (Shalmaneser I, Esarhaddon, Assurbanipal), who describe their victims as sheep to the slaughter—CAD Ṭ, s.v. ṭabāḫu. 13.  Midrashic sources typically sought to dispel a literal understanding of this verse; see b. Soṭ. 48a; Est. Rab. 10:1; Midrash Pss. 121.

174

Human Interaction with the Natural World

of martyrdom,14 the image that comes to mind on the surface-level reading is of a sheep kicking and screaming at her owner, who has delivered her to the neighbor for dinner and gone off to take a nap. The outrage felt by the innocent, defenseless sheep clearly has nothing in common with the silent, submissive servant figure of Isaiah 53, nor does it accurately reflect pious interpretations such as that of Ibn Ezra, who glosses (in his commentary to Ps 44:23) “for we are killed willingly for the glory of your name and willingly we are considered like sheep to the slaughter, even though we are better human beings than those who slaughter us.”15 Before proceeding to the next two texts (Jer 11 and Prov 7), in which the sheep/ox to slaughter imageries, respectively, are rooted in the animal’s misplaced trust in the human, I shall devote a few words to the ancient Israelite realia underlying the trust that a sheep or ox would have been likely to develop toward its human caregiver. Sheep and oxen (along with donkeys and goats) were prominent among the domesticated animals of the ancient Israelite household, such that the pair ‫ צאן ובקר‬is commonplace in biblical parlance of various textual strata (e.g. Gen 13:5; 26:14; Exod 34:3; Lev 1:2; 27:32; Deut 12:21; 16:2, etc.). For the most part, it can be surmised that sheep were raised for their wool and oxen for their use in agricultural work.16 This would explain the unusually high penalties allotted to the thief who not only stole an ox or sheep, but also slaughtered or sold it (Exod 21:37). Such a thief would have deprived the animal’s owner of an ongoing source of livelihood. When such animals were slaughtered and eaten by the owners, it would much more likely have been within the framework of a sacrificial rite rather than merely for a good meal. Even though Deuteronomic law sanctions the slaughter and consumption of non-sacrificial meat (e.g., Deut 12:21), this probably presented a viable option only for people of relative means.17 Instances of the root ‫טבח‬, which unlike the catch-all term ‫ זבח‬is only used to refer to

14.  See the survey in Yael S. Feldman, “Not as Sheep Led to Slaughter? On Trauma, Selective Memory, and the Making of Historical Consciousness,” Jewish Social Studies 19, no. 3 (2013): 147–51. 15.  ‫כי ברצוננו אנו נהרגים על דבר כבוד שמך וברצוננו נחשבנו כצאן טבחה אע"פ שאנחנו‬ ‫בני איש טובים מהטובחים אותנו‬ 16.  See Aharon Sasson, Animal Husbandry in Ancient Israel: A Zooarchaeological Perspective on Livestock Exploitation, Herd Management and Economic Strategies, Approaches to Anthropological Archaeology (London: Equinox, 2008), 35, 116. 17.  See Jeffrey H. Tigay, The JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996), 124. Priestly law even has provisions for more affordable types of sacrifices for those in need (Lev 12:8; 14:21–22).

G

-G

The Thematic Functions of the Sheep/Ox

175

non-sacrificial slaughter, characteristically occur in contexts that bespeak wealth or even opulence (e.g., Gen 43:16; 1 Sam 25:11; Prov 9:2).18 Similarly, it is the rich man in Nathan’s parable who is taken to task for stealing the poor man’s single ewe and serving it up to his guest, rather than using a sheep from his own ample flock for that purpose (2 Sam 12:1–4). The above data indicate that sheep or oxen were an integral part of the household, including those that were slaughtered for non-sacrificial purposes by their wealthy owners.19 As such, the animal would naturally develop a familiarity with its “home” surroundings and settle into a regular routine, including of course grazing. The animal would presumably feel secure within its familiar surroundings, even exhibiting what humans would refer to as “trust” toward its human caregivers.20 At the same time, those sheep or oxen that ended up being slaughtered, particularly for non-sacrificial purposes, were considered expendable, in the sense that their wealthy owners who could afford to slaughter them as luxury food would not be adversely affected by their demise. In other words, the use of a domesticated animal for its meat would be regarded by the owner in purely utilitarian terms, inasmuch as plenty more flock would still remain available for non-consumption purposes. Hence, one can speak of an occasional dichotomy between the sheep’s inherent “trust” in its “familial” surroundings versus the purely practical motivation of the sheep’s keepers in disposing of it. Jeremiah 11 The dichotomy just mentioned is nowhere more apparent than in Jer 11:18–19. Jeremiah discovers only by way of Divine disclosure that his own kinsmen were plotting to kill him. The prophet describes his state prior to this horrifying discovery as being like a ‫כבש אלוף יובל לטבוח‬. 18.  The same applies to ‫ זבח‬in its non-sacrificial occurrences, e.g., 1 Kgs 1:25; 2 Chr 18:2. 19.  The jarring case just cited of Nathan’s proverbial rich man who slaughtered the sheep of his poor neighbor is precisely the exception that proves the rule. 20.  In this context, one ought to note the observations of Armstrong and Rowell, as cited by Arthur Walker-Jones, Psalms Book 2: An Earth Bible Commentary (London: T&T Clark, 2020), 44. According to Armstrong, “Scientific studies…show that sheep possess…a highly developed ability (beyond that of dogs, and comparable to humans’ own) to identify individuals by their faces, even after long periods of separation.” Rowell adds that sheep possess “forms of emotional and social intelligence equal to or exceeding those of primates.”

176

Human Interaction with the Natural World

Much of the phrase’s rhetorical effect depends on how one renders the adjective ‫אלוף‬. NJPS’s translation, “For I was like a docile lamb led to the slaughter…,” puts the focus on Jeremiah’s passivity.21 Yet given that the context speaks of a plot against Jeremiah by his own family members, priority ought to be given to Holladay’s rendering: “I for my part had been like a trusting lamb (who) is led to slaughter….”22 It should be noted that the basic meaning of the root ‫ אלף‬is to teach or to train. To be sure, training an animal is geared toward developing its obedience, hence its docility, but it also necessitates gaining the animal’s trust. Furthermore, the element of trust is primary in the nominal meaning of ‫ אלוף‬referring to an intimate friend (Ps 55:14) and even a male spouse (Jer 3:4; Prov 2:17). Essentially, Jeremiah’s imagery of the ‫ כבש אלוף יובל לטבוח‬expresses the idea that whereas Jeremiah had placed his full, innocent confidence in his kinsmen, never suspecting for a moment that they might seek him harm, in fact, Jeremiah’s relatives considered him expendable, indeed troublesome, and therefore plotted to eliminate him. As in most metaphors, one cannot expect a precise correspondence between the image invoked and the reality with which it is being compared. Unlike the rich sheep owner, Jeremiah’s relatives do not own him (although they would seem to wield more influence than he), nor is their plan to kill him intended merely to satisfy their appetites. Nevertheless, as noted above, the underlying rhetorical force of the ‫ כבש אלוף‬imagery lies in its contrast between the trusting naivety of the sheep (Jeremiah) and the sinister intentions of those who would normally be expected to guard it (Jeremiah’s relatives).23 Interestingly, Jeremiah’s plea to God to exact vengeance on his enemies closes by once again invoking the imagery of the sheep destined for slaughter—“Drive them out like sheep to the slaughter (‫התקם כצאן‬ ‫)לטבחה‬, prepare them for the day of slaying” (Jer 12:3). Still in all, 21.  Dell views Jer 11:19 as constituting a literary influence for Isa 53:7–8 (discussed partially above), although she agrees, following J. Goldingay, that Jeremiah “certainly did not behave uncomplainingly in his suffering.” See Katharine J. Dell, “The Suffering Servant of Deutero-Isaiah: Jeremiah Revisited,” in Genesis, Isaiah and Psalms: A Festschrift to Honour Professor John Emerton for his Eightieth Birthday, VTSup 135, ed. Katharine J. Dell, Graham Davies, and Yee V. Koh (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 124–27. See also Joseph Blenkinsopp, “The Sacrificial Life and Death of the Servant (Isaiah 52:13–53:12),” in Essays on the Book of Isaiah, FAT 128 (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2019), 191. 22.  William L. Holladay, Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, chapters 1–25, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 363. 23.  See Yair Hoffman, Jeremiah: Introduction and Commentary, Mikra Leyisra’el (Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 2001), 321 [Hebrew].

G

-G

The Thematic Functions of the Sheep/Ox

177

however much the anticipated fate of Jeremiah’s enemies may reflect a “measure for measure” punishment, Hoffman is correct in noting that the sheep imagery in 12:3 is not used to express the naivety of the sheep (as in 11:19), but rather the ease with which it can be killed.24 Proverbs 7 Jeremiah’s misplaced trust in his relatives can be fruitfully compared and contrasted with that of the foolish lad in his temptress, the infamous “strange woman” of Proverbs 7.25 On the surface level, both Jeremiah and the foolish lad are portrayed as potential or actual victims, respectively, of their unsuspectedness, much like the sheep or ox that has no clue of its imminent fatal demise. And yet, the difference in circumstances is vast indeed. Jeremiah was faced with betrayal by his own kin, whereas the foolish lad is caught up in a crisis of his own making, by allowing himself to be allured by someone with whom he shares no kinship whatsoever. The strange woman’s wiles are specifically directed to make the lad feel at home, “part of the family” as it were, precisely in order to cultivate the type of trust that an ox would have in its owner. A noteworthy point in this context is how often the word ‫“( בית‬home”) appears in the unfolding drama. The wise teacher initially observes the foolish lad wandering unsuspectedly in the area of the strange woman’s home (Prov 7:8).26 The lad is confronted by the defiant woman, who in her rebelliousness (evidently toward her husband) does not tend to her home (v. 11), but instead roams the streets (v. 12). Along with her other means of seduction, the woman invites the lad to her home, assuring him that “the man” (referring to her husband) is not in “his home” (v. 19) and will only return to “his home” at a later date (v. 20). In a sense, then, the woman is suggesting that the lad play the role of substitute man of the house, at one and the same time flattering him and entrapping him into an environment of artificial closeness. It is at this point that the lad becomes easy prey, following her not only like the trusting “ox to the slaughter” (v. 22),27 but

24.  Ibid., 324. 25.  See Tova L. Forti, “The Isha Zara in Proverbs 1–9: Allegory and Allegorization,” Hebrew Studies 48 (2007): 89–100. 26.  Ironically, the wise teacher observes the unfolding scene from the window of his own home (Prov 7:6). 27.  The adverb ‫( פתאם‬suddenly) underscores the reckless, impulsive nature of the lad’s decision. This creates a more powerful picture than LXX’s rendering, which reflects a Vorlage based on some form of ‫( פתאים‬foolish; cf. Ps 116:6).

178

Human Interaction with the Natural World

also like “a bird rushing to a trap” (v. 23).28 The latter imagery extends that of the ox to slaughter by injecting the element of attraction in addition to mindlessness. Thus, the foolish lad has been taken in not merely by a false sense of security, but by falling for the attractive entrapments that the strange woman laid out for him.29 Inasmuch as the lad himself bears responsibility for his misplaced trust in the woman and for following her allurements, he is indeed deserving of death (vv. 23, 26–27).30 Again, this stands in stark contrast to Jeremiah’s situation, in which Jeremiah’s naïve trust in his relatives was a legitimate, understandable position, and therefore, his tormentors are the ones deserving of death. Concluding Thoughts Although the sheep/ox to slaughter imagery is present in all of the four texts discussed in this study, I have shown that no one interpretive model can be applied across the board and that, indeed, each text invokes the imagery for a different thematic purpose. A fruitful angle for sharpening this point is to consider the nature of the perpetrator and victim in each case, namely, who is playing the roles of slaughterer and sheep/ ox, respectively. In Isaiah 53, the identity of the perpetrator is left ambiguous, though the underlying message is that the victim servant’s passive suffering (including his being led to slaughter like a silent sheep) is of God’s doing, whether by God himself or by human agents executing the divine plan. The fact that eventually the divine plan brings about the servant’s restoration enables us to retroactively relate to the servant’s suffering state as purposeful rather than merely arbitrary and cruel. This dynamic is completely absent in Psalm 44, wherein the perpetrators, 28.  The other faunal elements in vv. 22–23 are not altogether clear; see Michael V. Fox, Proverbs 1–9: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 18A (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 249–50. 29.  A comparable situation is expressed in Prov 1:10–19, in which the vulnerable lad is enjoined by the wise teacher not to be tempted by the material benefits offered him by a gang of violent sinners. In both texts, one finds the imagery of a potentially fatal bird trap; see Tova L. Forti, Animal Imagery in the Book of Proverbs, VTSup 118 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 25–29. For further analysis of the bird trap motif in Prov 1:17 and related passages, see Tova L. Forti, “Even the Sparrow Has Found a Home (Ps 84:5): From Uprooting and Wandering to Safety and Intimacy,” in Networks of Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible, BETL 309, ed. Danilo Verde and Antje Labahn (Leuven: Peeters, 2020), 233–35. 30.  Or in wisdom terms, the lad brings death upon himself by spurning wisdom’s teachings.

G

-G

The Thematic Functions of the Sheep/Ox

179

namely Israel’s enemies, continue to slaughter their hapless victims who wait in vain for God’s salvation. The true passive figure in this context is not the sheep but the shepherd, who offers no protection for the present, nor any horizon of solace for the future. Jeremiah 11 also presents us with a completely sympathetic picture of the victim, namely the prophet himself, inasmuch as the role of perpetrator is assigned to his own kinsmen. The “sheep’s” trusting innocence in the face of danger is thus entirely understandable, whereas the pernicious intentions of the perpetrators warrant their own untimely demise. The contrast here is to Proverbs 7, in which the perpetrator is identified as a complete stranger (the strange woman), from whom the victim (the foolish lad), had he adhered to the precepts of wisdom, should have taken appropriate precautions. Thus, in this latter case, the “ox” is essentially held responsible for digging his own grave. In sum, the “sheep/ox to slaughter” imagery discussed in this study is common to prophetic texts (Isa 53 and Jer 11), the Psalms (Ps 44), and wisdom literature (Prov 7), yet each one of these texts invokes the imagery for a different thematic purpose. In Isaiah 53, the servant’s sheeplike passivity serves to highlight the stark contrast between his former wretched state and his future exaltation. In Psalm 44, the people’s hapless fate of being slaughtered like sheep by their cruel enemies contributes to the outrage expressed toward an absent God. In Jeremiah 11, the prophet’s belated realization of his misplaced trust in his kinsmen, who were plotting to slaughter him like a sheep, gives voice to his justified feeling of betrayal. And in Proverbs 7, the foolish lad who mindlessly allows himself to be seduced by the strange woman, following her like an ox to slaughter, is essentially held responsible for his own demise. An analysis of the nature of the perpetrator and victim in each case crystallizes the connections between seemingly diverse texts.

Chapter 14

T T

F

E A

D

M A

M A

: E

*

Nili Shupak

This essay explores a unique form of ancient Egyptian art: animated animal pictures whose distribution is restricted to a specific time and place. Although various suggestions have been proposed with regard to the significance and purpose of these images, their meaning remains obscure to this day. First reviewing the data, I then address the difficulties they pose and the principal solutions raised in recent scholarship. Then I offer my own theory, expanding an idea that has already been advanced by adducing texts and arguments to support it.1 Let us set the scene, however, by briefly reviewing Egyptian attitudes towards the animal kingdom. Egyptian Attitudes towards the Animal Kingdom In the Hebrew Bible, humanity is the crown and master of creation. When God completes his seven days of labor, the animals parade before Adam in order to be named (Gen 2:19–20). After the flood, God gave human beings permission to eat them (Gen 9:3). The Egyptians regarded human– faunal interaction rather differently. Viewing animals as forming part of the primeval waters (nun) that covered the earth and contained all created beings, they accorded them the same status as human beings. Acknowledging that some faunal qualities are superior to human attributes, however, they also worshiped and even identified the gods with * I am delighted to dedicate this paper relating to animals in Egypt to my colleague and friend Professor Tova Forti in honor of her momentous contribution to the investigation of faunal images in the Hebrew Bible. 1.  See n. 39 below.

184

Human Interaction with the Natural World

certain animals.2 Animals who served as symbols of a god(dess) were reared and worshiped in temples dedicated to him/her, being embalmed and buried in human fashion upon their death. Egyptian cemeteries have yielded hundreds of thousands of embalmed animals: crocodiles, ibis, monkeys, cats, oxen, etc. Animals were linked not only with the religious sphere but also with other areas of life in ancient Egypt. Domestic animals helped carry burdens and were employed in agricultural labor and gardening. They served as pets (dogs, cats, monkeys, ducks), and were also used as toys— young birds in particular, but also wooden and faienced animals. The Egyptians’s affinities with the animal world are also reflected in Egyptian script and literature. Of the approximately 800 Egyptian hieroglyphs, 180 represent (parts of) animals (24%!). The list is headed by birds, followed in order by mammals, reptiles, insects, and fish. Serving various functions, they occur frequently as determinatives—i.e., at the end of a word conveying its general sense; as ideograms, in which the drawing indicates the meaning of the term; and as phonograms, denoting specific sounds, dissociated from the signification.3 The crocodile, for example, acts as a determinative in words denoting the animal’s attributes—rapidity and covetousness; the sparrow defines terms connoting smallness and wickedness; the baboon signifies being angry (qnd) and the fattened goose obesity, gluttony, and supplies. The eagle serves as an ideogram in the word for mother (mwt), perhaps due to its maternal nature, with the jackal representing “patrolling” (s3b) in light of its custom of wandering around. The plethora of animal hieroglyphs prompted the author of the Book of Thoth—a didactic Hellenistic textbook for students in the “House of Life”—to compare mastering the skill of writing to hunting: the scribal writing tools are trap and net, the pupil’s zeal being depicted in terms of catching fish and trapping the “fattest of their exotic/migratory birds(?).”4 2.  Generally speaking, the animal-god(dess) link derives from an association between a faunal attribute or pattern of behavior and the role played by the divinity. However, it is not always clear why a particular animal was connected with a specific god. 3.  See Pascal Vernus, “Les Animaux dans l’ecriture égyptienne,” in Bestiaire des Pharaons, ed. Pascal Vernus and Jean Yoyotte (Paris: A. Viénot, 2005), 67–75; Angela McDonald, “The Curiosity of the Cat in Hieroglyphs,” in Sitting Beside Lepsius: Studies in Honour of Jaromic Malek at the Griffith Institute, ed. Diana Magee et al. (Leuven: Peeters, 2009), 361–62. 4.  Nili Shupak, “Images for Learning and Teaching Activities in Egyptian Wisdom Literature and Their Contact with Biblical Wisdom,” Bibliotheca Orientalis 77 (2021): 57–79 (69).

S

The First Mickey Mouse

185

Egyptian literature is replete with faunal references. Some animals function as protagonists, primarily in fables. The most well-known—the Myth of the Eye of the Sun (i.e. the goddess Tefnut)—functions as a frame for others and is directly relevant to the present discussion. Portrayed as a lioness or great cat, Tefnut quarrels with her father, the Sun god Re, and escapes to Nubia. When Re sends Thoth to bring her back, the latter—assuming the form of monkey—persuades her to return by telling her animal fables.5 In the Hymns to Aten and Amen-Re, animals laud the lofty sun.6 For example, animals speak in human language in legends and wonder tales: the cows in the Tale of the Two Brothers; the enormous snake in the Tale of the Shipwrecked Sailor, and a dog and crocodile in The Doomed Prince.7 Faunal imagery also pervades the Egyptian wisdom instructions and scribal literature. A well-known passage from the Instruction of Any compares the education given to the youth to animal training: just as the ox and lion, horse and dog, monkey and goose can be tamed, so the recalcitrant pupil can be taught (B22,19–23,7). The undisciplined, lazy student is likened to a donkey, hippopotamus, goose, and so on (Pap. Anastasi IV 2, 4–5; Pap. Lansing 3, 5–10).8 Animals also make an appearance in diverse plastic-art pieces— statues, paintings, jewelry, and amulets. Monkey figurines appear in various poses: playing musical instruments, riding in chariots, sailing boats, taking care of children, and picking dates. Private tomb walls are decorated with drawings of pets under their master’s chair and cats 5.  See Emma Brunner-Traut, Altägyptische Märchen, 4th ed. (Düsseldorf: Eugen Diederichs, 1976), 120–36; and n. 26 below. 6.  For translation, see Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971–1980), 2:88, 92 (henceforth: AEL). 7.  See ibid., 1:211–15, 2:200–211. The tradition of speaking animals continues in later literature. In the Roman-period Oracle of the Lamb, for example, the animal predicts the disasters that will befall Egypt: see Heinz-Josef Thissen, “Das Lamm des Bokchoris,” in Apokalyptik und Ägypten: Eine kritische Analyse der relevanten Texte aus dem griechisch römischen Ägypten, ed. Andreas Blasius and Bern Ulrich Schipper, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 107 (Leuven: Peeters, 2002), 113–38. Noegel has recently questioned the prevailing scholarly view of speaking human language animals, suggesting that the “characterization of talking animals in such texts [i.e., non-mythological narratives] constitutes an unrecognized literary topos that is grounded in real ritual and divinatory practice”: Scott Noegel, “When Animals Speak,” JANES 34 (2020): 107–35 (108). 8.  For translation, see Richard Caminos, Late Egyptian Miscellanies (London: Oxford University Press, 1954), 131, 381–82 (henceforth: LEM); Shupak, “Images for Learning,” 4–5, 21–22.

186

Human Interaction with the Natural World

carrying mice or chewing fish, and so on. The impressive detail these images exhibit indicates that the artists were intimately acquainted with faunal attributes and behavior. Rather than focusing upon official Egyptian art reflected primarily in tomb-wall and temple decorations, I would like herein to explore a collection of close to a hundred anthropomorphized animal scenes preserved on clay or stone ostraca and on three papyri housed today in the Cairo, London, and Turin Museums. The Deir el-Medina Findings The Deir el-Medina (henceforth DeM) collection comes from a village inhabited for around 400 years between the fifteenth and eleventh centuries BCE (New Kingdom period). Established by the authorities at the beginning of the Eighteenth Dynasty for the artisans and artists responsible for the construction of the tombs in the Valleys of the Kings and Queens, the excavations have yielded approximately 70 houses. On the premise that each would have been home to five souls, the population is estimated to have been around 350. The northern and northwestern sections contained cemeteries and small temples dedicated to the gods worshiped therein—Amenhotep I, who was apotheosized, the queen Ahmose Nefertari, and the goddess Hathor. The remnants of over 60 huts have also been excavated in the west section, between the village and the Valley of the Kings and Queens where the artists and laborers lived during the week. The findings also include thousands of hieratic texts on ostraca and papyri. These serve as one of the most important sources of information regarding New Kingdom Egypt in general and the life of the DeM residents in particular, revealing details regarding daily life, the organization of the work and its execution, the professional hierarchy among the teams of workers, the socioeconomic status of the artists/artisans, and so on. Unlike other Egyptian villagers, most of whom were illiterate peasants or farmers, the majority of the DeM residents were builders, draftsmen, painters, and scribes. Engaged in professions that required official education and high-level skills, scholars assume that at least forty percent of the community could read and write—a far greater proportion than the general Egyptian population.9 9.  The fact that scribal education was available in the village is attested by the dozens of school exercises found. Inter alia, these include passages from the didactic texts that formed part of the Egyptian curriculum—e.g., The Instruction of Amenemhet, The Satire of the Trades, and The Kemit: see Nili Shupak, “No Man

S

The First Mickey Mouse

187

The majority of the ostraca bearing scenes of anthropomorphized animals are derived from private collections. Although the precise place in which they were discovered and their archaeological context thus remain unclear, contemporary scholars generally agree that they come from DeM. Most of the ostraca were purchased in nearby Thebes, while some were unearthed in a vast rubbish pit in the village. The fact that the subjects of the scenes in which animals appear—banquets, battles, orchestras, dancers, religious processions, board games, and so on—are prevalent in the tombs in the Valleys of the Kings and Queens constructed by the DeM residents likewise points to their having been produced by the same artisans who built the royal tombs.10 The artists who drew the faunal images were thus familiar with the official art of the tombs and temples of the upper classes—both royalty and aristocracy. The anthropomorphized animal images on both the papyri and ostraca, moreover, reflect a high level of artistic skill and fine detail that suggest the work of experienced craftsmen.11 At the same time, the creative thought and imagination they exhibit are unparalleled in official Egyptian artwork. Discovered in tombs, palaces and temples, this was determined by a fixed canon, embodied in the repetition of conventional themes and dimensions. The collection’s distinctive nature is also manifest in the number of drawings and variety of subjects, both of which are far greater than the sporadic examples from early and later periods.12 is Born Wise”: Ancient Egyptian Wisdom Literature and its Contact with Biblical Literature, Biblical Encyclopaedia Library 32 (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2016), 28 n. 78 (Hebrew). For a detailed description of the history of DeM, daily life therein, and the textual evidence it has yielded, see A. G. McDowell, Village Life in Ancient Egypt (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999); Alex Peden, “The Community of Workmen at DeM in the Ramesside Period: An Overview of Rank and Roles,” in Ramesside Studies in Honour of K. A. Kitchen, ed. Mark Collier and Steven Snape (Bolton: Rutherford, 2011), 381–86; Kathlyn M. Cooney, The Cost of Death: The Social and Economic Value of Ancient Egyptian Funerary Art in the Ramesside Period (Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 2007), 12–15. 10.  See below. Several excavation seasons have been conducted at DeM. While the fullest catalogue of the findings was published by Vandier on behalf of the Institut français d’archéologie orientale, this contains sketches rather than photos: see Jennifer Babcock, “Anthropomorphized Animal Imagery on New Kingdom Ostraca and Papyri: Their Artistic and Social Significance” (PhD diss., New York University, 2014), 15. 11.  Ibid., 35. 12.  Anthropomorphized animals in the form of statues, illustrations, and reliefs date back to Egypt’s earliest beginnings (end of the fourth millennium BCE),

188

Human Interaction with the Natural World

The Drawings, the Problems They Raise, and the Solutions Proposed The relatively small drawings—between 4 and 40 cm—occur on ostraca and on three papyri, parts of which have been preserved in fragmentary form. The papyrus examples are also attributed to the DeM artists, scholars dating them to the Ramesside period (1300–1100 BCE) when the village was at its peak.13 The majority of the ostraca drawings are in black ink, the rest being in colors such as yellow, blue, and red. Employing fixed, recurring motifs, they create the impression that they are based on traditional designs and patterns.14 The most common motifs, according to number and distribution, are: (1)

Animals serving others (×22): cats serving mouse mistresses (Figs. 1–2); jackals/foxes serving a mouse mistress (Fig. 3); jackals giving water to an ox (Fig. 4).15

continuing through to the Coptic period (seventh–eighth century CE). See Emma Brunner-Traut, “Bildgeschichte,” in Lexikon der Ägyptologie, ed. Wolfgang Helck, Eberhard Otto, and Wolfhart Westendorf (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1972–89), 1:789–800 (henceforth: LÄ); Patrick F. Houlihan, “Animals in Egyptian Art and Hieroglyphs,” in A History of the Animal World in the Ancient Near East, ed. Billie Jean Collins (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 123–24. 13.  Building on Cooney’s thesis that the Egyptians valued artwork not only due to the quality of the material from which it was made but also for its beauty, aesthetic quality, and creators’ skills, Babcock (“Anthropomorphized Animal Imagery,” 49–62) argues that the ostraca drawings are no less inferior to those in the papyri and should thus also be treated as “fine art.” See also Kathlyn M. Cooney, “The Functional Materialism of Death in Ancient Egypt: A Case Study of Funerary Materials from the Ramesside Period,” in Das Heilige und die Ware zum Spannungsfeld von Religion und Ökonomie, ed. Martin Fitzenreiter, Internetbeiträge zur Ägyptologie und Sudanarchäologie 7 (London: Golden House, 2007). 14.  For the list of motifs, see Brunner-Traut, Altägyptische Tiergeschichte, 7–17. The distribution partially follows Babcock, “Anthropomorphized Animal Imagery,” 108–9. Fragments and/or drawings that are difficult to reconstruct are excluded herein. 15.  Cf. also the paintings from the Medamud temple (seventh century BCE), in which a cat and dog (or jackal) serve a mouse mistress; see Patrick F. Houlihan, The Animal World of the Pharaohs (New York: Thames & Hudson, 1996), 216, Fig. 153. It is unclear whether this scene depicts a situation deriving from a mouse-over-cat victory (#6). While Brunner-Traut maintains that the mouse–cat war has parallels

S

The First Mickey Mouse

189

(2)

Animals herding other animals or engaged in providing food (×16): foxes/jackals herding goats and cats–geese (Figs. 5–7); animals kneading dough (Fig. 8). (3) Animals dancing and playing musical instruments (×8) (Figs. 9–10). (4) The Myth of the Eye of the Sun (Tefnut) (×5) (Fig. 11). (5) Beaten boy (×3 in different versions) (Figs. 12–13).16 (6) Cat–mouse war (×3): a mouse battalion attacks a cat fortress (Fig. 14); a cat–mouse boxing match (Fig. 15); stick duel (Fig. 16).17 (7) “Upside-down world”: a bird (crow or raven) climbing a ladder up a tree on whose high branches a hippopotamus is perched (×3) (Fig. 17). (8) Prisoners transportation and judgment scene (×2): animal detainees (Fig. 18); a “judgment of the dead” scene: a crow (or raven) and hippopotamus being balanced on scales (Fig. 19). (9) Animals at play (×1): a lion and mountain goat playing a board game (senet) (Fig. 20). (10) Animals performing religious rites (×1): worship of a mouse or jackal god (Fig. 21).

in other cultures, from the ancient Near East (twentieth century BCE) through to modern-day Egypt, they exhibit no parallels to the cat-serving-mouse motif. Nevertheless, she includes them in her reconstruction of the motif: Emma BrunnerTraut, “Der Katzenmäusekrieg—Folge von Rauschgift,” GM 25 (1977): 47–51. 16.  The human–animal mixture in this scene is unusual in the faunal drawings. It might thus be better classified as a didactic illustration forming part of an educational framework—possibly a parody of teacher–student relations, the youth representing the lazy pupil repeatedly threatened with beating in didactic texts, with the cat and mouse representing the teachers. See Babcock, “Anthropomorphized Animal Imagery,” 117–18. 17.  Brunner-Traut (Altägyptische Tiergeschichte, 7 [1 d] and Fig. 34) seeks to add a late Coptic wall drawing from the seventh–eighth century CE to the cat–mouse motif. However, the vast diachronic gap between the two sets makes it difficult to connect them.

190

Human Interaction with the Natural World

Fig. 14.1. A mouse mistress sitting on a chair and drinking from a cup surrounded by cats engaged in various activities – hair-styling, waving a fan, and playing governess to the baby mouse. Cairo Papyrus, Ramesside period. Reproduced from E. Brunner-Traut, Altägyptische Tiergeschichte (Darmrstadt 1968), Abbildungen 1–11, 13, 14, 18, 21, 23, 29, 30, 33 by courtesy of the author.

Fig. 14.2. A mouse mistress sitting on a chair and drinking from a jug through a straw (Asian style). Cats busy themselves around her, two pets—a kitten and a goose—standing on either side of her. Ostracon, probably from DeM, Ramesside period. Reproduced from E. Brunner-Traut, Altägyptische Tiergeschichte (Darmstadt 1968), Abbildungen 1–11, 13, 14, 18, 21, 23, 29, 30, 33 by courtesy of the author.

S

The First Mickey Mouse

Fig. 14.3. Foxes serving a mouse sitting on a chair, one serving a drink while holding a fan, another presenting a bunch of flowers, and a third playing a harp. Clay vessel, Brussels, Ramesside period. Reproduced from E. Brunner-Traut, Altägyptische Tiergeschichte (Darmstadt 1968), Abbildungen 1–11, 13, 14, 18, 21, 23, 29, 30, 33 by courtesy of the author.

Fig. 14.4. A pair of foxes pouring water for an ox. Cairo Papyrus, Ramesside period. Reproduced from E. Brunner-Traut, Altägyptische Tiergeschichte (Darmstadt 1968), Abbildungen 1–11, 13, 14, 18, 21, 23, 29, 30, 33 by courtesy of the author.

191

192

Human Interaction with the Natural World

Fig. 14.5. Foxes, carrying sacks of food on their shoulders, herding goats. One holds a shepherd’s staff in its hand, the other plays a double oboe. London Papyrus, Ramesside period. Reproduced from E. Brunner-Traut, Altägyptische Tiergeschichte (Darmstadt 1968), Abbildungen 1–11, 13, 14, 18, 21, 23, 29, 30, 33 by courtesy of the author.

Fig. 14.6. A cat carrying a pitcher of water and sack of food tends geese. Ostracon, DeM, New Kingdom period. Reproduced from E. Brunner-Traut, Altägyptische Tiergeschichte (Darmstadt 1968), Abbildungen 1–11, 13, 14, 18, 21, 23, 29, 30, 33 by courtesy of the author.

S

The First Mickey Mouse

Fig. 14.7. Cats herding geese. One carries a stick to which a sack containing food is tied while holding a baby goose. Another is attacked by an angry goose. A third pours water over the two combatants to calm them down. Turin Papyrus, Ramesside period. Reproduced from E. Brunner-Traut, Altägyptische Tiergeschichte (Darmstadt 1968), Abbildungen 1–11, 13, 14, 18, 21, 23, 29, 30, 33 by courtesy of the author.

Fig. 14.8. A brewing bear. A hippopotamus kneads dough in a bowl, a canine animal holding a bowl for it to rise in. A fox/jackal carries the bitch’s(?) puppy. London Papyrus, Ramesside period. Reproduced from E. BrunnerTraut, Altägyptische Tiergeschichte (Darmstadt 1968), Abbildungen 1–11, 13, 14, 18, 21, 23, 29, 30, 33 by courtesy of the author.

193

194

Human Interaction with the Natural World

Fig. 14.9. An animal orchestra: a donkey plucking a harp, a lion playing a lyre and singing, a crocodile strumming a lute, and a monkey blowing a double oboe. Turin Papyrus, Ramesside period. Reproduced from E. Brunner-Traut, Altägyptische Tiergeschichte (Darmstadt 1968), Abbildungen 1–11, 13, 14, 18, 21, 23, 29, 30, 33 by courtesy of the author.

Fig. 14.10. A he-goat dancing in front of a fox/jackal playing a double oboe. Ostracon, DeM, Ramesside period. Reproduced from E. Brunner-Traut, Altägyptische Tiergeschichte (Darmstadt 1968), Abbildungen 1–11, 13, 14, 18, 21, 23, 29, 30, 33 by courtesy of the author.

S

The First Mickey Mouse

Fig. 14.11. The Myth of the Eye of the Sun. Tefnut as a lioness with a raised tail, holding a stick, her tongue stuck out menacingly towards her father’s messenger—Thoth. In the guise of a monkey, the latter complacently munches a date. Above, a vulture protects a nest of eggs—probably a reference to Thoth’s story of the quarrel between the mother eagle and mother cat. Ostracon, DeM, Ramesside period. Reproduced from E. Brunner-Traut, Altägyptische Tiergeschichte (Darmstadt 1968), Abbildungen 1–11, 13, 14, 18, 21, 23, 29, 30, 33 by courtesy of the author.

Fig. 14.12. A cat acting as servant to a mouse-magistrate and beating a nude kneeling boy with a side-lock characteristic hairstyle of young. Ostracon, probably from DeM, Ramesside period. Reproduced from E. Brunner-Traut, Altägyptische Tiergeschichte (Darmstadt 1968), Abbildungen 1–11, 13, 14, 18, 21, 23, 29, 30, 33 by courtesy of the author.

195

196

Human Interaction with the Natural World

Fig. 14.13. A variant of Fig. 14.12. Despite defecating, the youth turns the tables on the cat and beats off his attacker. The cat appeals to the mouse-magistrate for mercy. Ostracon, probably from DeM, Ramesside period. Reproduced from E. Brunner-Traut, Altägyptische Tiergeschichte (Darmstadt 1968), Abbildungen 1–11, 13, 14, 18, 21, 23, 29, 30, 33 by courtesy of the author.

Fig. 14.14. A regiment of mice attacks a fortress defended by cats, the leader driving a chariot led by dogs. As the mice break into the city by climbing a ladder over the wall, the cats raise their hands in surrender. Turin Papyrus, Ramesside period. Reproduced from E. Brunner-Traut, Altägyptische Tiergeschichte (Darmstadt 1968), Abbildungen 1–11, 13, 14, 18, 21, 23, 29, 30, 33 by courtesy of the author.

S

The First Mickey Mouse

Fig. 14.15. A cat and mouse engaged in a boxing match, an eagle holding a palm branch serving as referee. Terracotta figurine, Copenhagen, Hellenistic-Roman period. Reproduced from E. Brunner-Traut, Altägyptische Tiergeschichte (Darmstadt 1968), Abbildungen 1–11, 13, 14, 18, 21, 23, 29, 30, 33 by courtesy of the author.

Fig. 14.16. A cat and a mouse fighting a duel with curved sticks. Turin Papyrus, Ramesside period. Reproduced from Silvio Curto, La satira nell’ antico Egitto (Turin 1965), Fig. 11, by courtesy of his son Guido Curto and the Museo Egizio, Turin (Turin 55001).

197

198

Human Interaction with the Natural World

Fig. 14.17. A bird (crow?) climbing a fig tree by means of a ladder while a hippopotamus, perched high in the branches, gathers figs into a sack. Turin Papyrus, Ramesside period. Reproduced from E. Brunner-Traut, Altägyptische Tiergeschichte (Darmstadt 1968), Abbildungen 1–11, 13, 14, 18, 21, 23, 29, 30, 33 by courtesy of the author.

Fig. 14.18. A procession of prisoners, bound and screaming—a dog, cat, and bird—escorted by guards (a bird[?] and dog holding a stick). Papyrus Turin, Ramesside period. Reproduced from E. Brunner-Traut, Altägyptische Tiergeschichte (Darmstadt 1968), Abbildungen 1–11, 13, 14, 18, 21, 23, 29, 30, 33 by courtesy of the author.

S

The First Mickey Mouse

Fig. 14.19. A hippopotamus and crow standing on a balance beam resembling the hieroglyphic sign for life, an owl and cat serving as judges. Ostracon, probably from DeM, Ramesside period. Museum of Art and Archaeology, University of Missouri-Columbia, gift of Mr. and Mrs. Donald Wilber, No. 63.6.7, drawing by John Huffstot. Reproduced from P. F. Houlihan, Wit and Humour in Ancient Egypt (London 2001), Fig. 109.

Fig. 14.20. A lion and mountain goat playing a senet board game. London Papyrus, Ramesside period. Reproduced from E. Brunner-Traut, Altägyptische Tiergeschichte (Darmstadt 1968), Abbildungen 1–11, 13, 14, 18, 21, 23, 29, 30, 33 by courtesy of the author.

199

200

Human Interaction with the Natural World

The majority of the motifs appear on both ostraca and papyri. While the ostraca examples generally contain one motif, the papyri portray a sequence, thus giving the impression of forming a type of “visual” or “comic story.”18 The animals act like human beings, walking on their two hind legs, and using their forelegs as hands. They wear clothes and adorn themselves with various accessories. Upper-class species are clothed and served by naked faunal servants as per Egyptian etiquette. Alongside serious activities such as warfare, wrestling, leading prisoners in procession, and rituals, they also participate in recreational activities: playing musical instruments, dancing, and games. Much of what they do consists of routine housework (preparing meals, dressing, coiffure) and yard work (gardening and herding). As Brunner-Traut observed, the task an animal performs is usually appropriate to its natural skills. Those portrayed as dancing and playing instruments are known for their voices and light-footedness—the donkey for its braying, the jackal for its howling, the lion for its roaring, and the crocodile for its shrieks. The monkey and billy goat, who leap and jump, are natural “dancers.” The animals who function as servants—foxes, jackals, goats, and cats—are also known for their nimbleness. The lion also plays its characteristic role, acting as a true sultan: playing a board game, drinking himself silly, and playing musical instruments. In some cases, however, normal relationships are turned upside down—the mouse is a war hero and plays the role of master, while cat or fox/jackal busy themselves about him, attending to his every whim.19 The bird uses a ladder to climb up a tree, while a hippopotamus perches high up on it as though having just landed upon a branch. The fox and cat tend geese, with the fox also herding goats. 18.  This is not the common view, however. Some scholars maintain that while the motifs are sequential, the storyline cannot be reconstructed; see, for example, Babcock, “Anthropomorphized Animal Imagery,” 10–13. In my opinion, in two cases some of the plot can be reconstructed: (1) the Myth of the Eye of the Sun, the text of which, although from a later period, has survived; (2) the cat-and-mouse struggle, some of these scenes being preserved on the ostraca and papyri: (a) a clash ending with a mouse victory; (b) the defeated cats are subjugated and forced to serve the mice. 19.  According to Brunner-Traut (“Der Katzenmäusekrieg—Folge von Rauschgift,” 47–51), the idea of the mouse’s superiority over the cat is so farcical that it must have arisen from mouse ingestion of a hallucinogenic mushroom common in the fields. Accumulating in the mice’s bodies as they fed on the grain, the cats who hunted them suffered from the after-effects of the drug for several hours, thus sparing the mice. No evidence exists for this theory, however, see Eric van Essche, “Le chat dans les fables et les contes: La guerre entre chats et souris, le monde retourné,” in Les divins chats d’Égypt: Un air subtil, un dangereux parfum, ed. Luc Delvaux and Eugène Warmenbol (Louvain: Peeters 1991), 76–77.

S

The First Mickey Mouse

Fig. 14.21. A mouse god being carried by four canine priests (jackals or foxes) along a canal. The kneeling priest offers incense and pours a libation, the one standing in front of the entourage reading the order of the ceremony from a papyrus scroll. Ostracon, Turin, New Kingdom period. Reproduced from E. Brunner-Traut, Altägyptische Tiergeschichte (Darmstadt 1968), Abbildungen 1–11, 13, 14, 18, 21, 23, 29, 30, 33 by courtesy of the author.

Fig. 14.22. A tomb owner presents offerings to Amenophis during a procession. Eight workmen carry the statue of the god on his throne, two others waving fans in front of the deified pharaoh. A priest with a leopard skin cloak walks alongside. Khabekhnet’s tomb, Thebes. Reproduced from A. G. McDowell, Village Life in Ancient Egypt (Oxford 2001), Fig. 17, after Jaroslav Cerný, BIFAO 27 (1927), Fig. 13.

201

202

Human Interaction with the Natural World

Fig. 14.23. A group of musicians and dancers: a harpist and lutist. A dancer stands in the center, two musicians behind her—a double oboist and lyrist. Mural from a tomb at Thebes, fourteenth century BCE. https://www .metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/557727

Fig. 14.24. Funeral banquet. Painted relief from the tomb of Vizier Rekhmire. Thebes, fourteenth century BCE. https://flekmanart.com/product /banquet-scene-from-the-tomb-of-rekhmire

S

The First Mickey Mouse

Fig. 14.25. The conquest of Ashkelon by Ramesses II’s army. Relief, Temple of Karnak, thirteenth century BCE. W. Wreszinski, Atlas zur altägyptischen Kulturgeschichte. Vol. 2 (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1935), Plate 58

Fig. 14.26. Judgment of the Dead. Papyrus Ani, Nineteenth dynasty. https:// commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bookdead.jpg

Fig. 14.27. Queen Nefertari, Ramesses II’s wife, playing a senet boardgame. Tomb of Nefertari, Thebes, thirteenth century BCE. https://nilefm .com/undefined/article/4200/fragments-of-ancient-egyptian-queen -nefertari-s-legs-undergo-ct-scan-in-usa

203

204

Human Interaction with the Natural World

Fig. 14.28. Tomb owner and his wife being waited on by their servants. Tomb of Nakht, Thebes, New Kingdom period. A. B. Shedid and M. Seidel, Das Grab des Nacht (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1991), 64–65.

The official Egyptian monumental art decorating the tombs and temples of kings and aristocrats exhibits parallels to many of these themes. Herein, however, human beings stand at the center rather than faunal images. The drawings depicting animals serving mice mistresses, for example, closely correspond to the paintings in the tombs in which the deceased sits on a chair by a table piled high with victuals while servants scurry about or to the banquet scenes in the tombs of the elite (Figs. 24 with 28). Another prominent motif in the latter—bands of musicians and dancers entertaining diners—undoubtedly lies in the backgrounds of the drawings of the animal orchestras (cf. Fig. 23 with Fig. 9). Those whiling the time away playing board games, preparing meals, or herding also reflect the former daily customs of the occupants of the tomb (cf. the image of Queen Nefertari playing senet in Fig. 27 with Fig. 20, for example). The mice who besiege the cats’ fortress are influenced by the descriptions of Pharaonic conquests of Asiatic cities characteristic of the Ramesside period—Medinat Habu, Ramesseum, and the temple of Karnak, for example (Fig. 25). Particularly noteworthy are the affinities between the foxes/jackals who act as priests, carrying a sanctuary bearing a mouse or jackal god, and the seven laborers depicted shouldering the statue of Amenhotep, the local god of DeM, in the tomb of an artisan called Khabekhnet, in the village (Figs. 21–22).

S

The First Mickey Mouse

205

Those responsible for the animated animal drawings were thus clearly familiar with the official art canon of the period. These were unquestionably the professional artists and artisans of DeM, the builders of the cemeteries in the Valleys of the Kings and Queens. While official artwork was customarily accompanied by texts or captions, its archaeological setting also being known, the origins and purposes of the faunal drawings remain a mystery: Why were they drawn? What do they mean? Who was their audience? Why were they so prevalent during the Ramesside period? Various answers have been proposed to these enigmas from the 1950s through to today. We shall suffice herein with a review of the principal dominant theories. (1)

(2)

“Comic relief”: The faunal images on the ostraca were produced as a pastime or recreational activity during the artists’ daytime work in the cemeteries.20 This theory is problematic, however. The excavations carried out around DeM indicate that the majority of the ostraca bearing anthropomorphized animals originated in the village itself rather than the royal cemeteries. Nor did they come from the area between the two, wherein remnants of temporary structures that served as the artists’ and craftsmen’s week-day residences have been found.21 Illustrations of folk tales and fables: One of the first scholars to propose this theory, which many still hold today, was Emma Brunner-Traut.22 She reads these scenes as episodes from tales and fables dealing with silly faunal behavior that invites ridicule

20.  See Houlihan, The Animal World, 212; idem, “Animals in Egyptian Art and Hieroglyphs,” 126; Jaromik Malek, The Cat in Ancient Egypt (London: British Museum, 1997), 116. 21.  A team from the University of Basel, headed by Dorn, discovered several ostraca decorated with animated animals in excavations carried out around the laborers’ huts between 1998 and 2005; however, see Andreas Dorn, Arbeiterhütten im Tal der Könige: Ein Beitrag zur altägyptischen Sozialgeschichte aufgrund von neuem Quellenmaterial aus der Mitte der 20. Dynastie (ca. 1150 v. Chr.), Aegyptiaca Helvetica 23 (Basel: Schwabe, 2011), vol. 1, 313, Figs. 315 and 316. I am indebted to Dr Deborah Sweeny for this information and reference. 22.  She defines a fable as: “A short satirical or didactic tale that employs love of nature, in particular animals, to demonstrate human attributes and describe them in typical circumstances, also seeking to draw general lessons from the tales” (“Fabel,” in LÄ 2:69; my free translation). For scholars who espouse this view, see Reingart Würfel, “Die ägyptische Fabel in Bildkunst und Literatur,” Wissenschaftlische Zeitschrift der Universität Leipzig 2 (1952/53): 63–77; Malek, The Cat in Ancient Egypt, 117; Ronald J. Williams, “The Fable in the Ancient Near East,” in Stubborn

206

Human Interaction with the Natural World

and is meant to entertain.23 This kind of fable not having been found prior to the Hellenistic-Roman period, scholars have assumed that it originated as an oral tradition, passed down from generation to generation. Support for this view can be adduced in the Myth of the Eye of the Sun, three of whose protagonists—the baboon, cat/lioness, and eagle—appear on five Ramesside-period ostraca (Fig. 11). The second-century CE Demotic version also relates that, in order to persuade Tefnut to return to Egypt, Thoth (in the guise of a baboon) tells her several fables.24 One of these—a quarrel between the eagle and the cat—is also illustrated on the ostraca.25 Brunner-Traut further argues that the tales have parallels in other cultures from earlier periods through to today, all of which help to fill out and reconstruct the ancient Egyptian stories.26 However, this methodology, whether in the form of synchronic inferences from ancient Near Eastern parallels or diachronic analogies drawn from later fables and folk tales (from Aesop’s sixth-century Greek fables to stories and folk songs prevalent in modern-day Egypt) is too far-reaching. The use of such aids

Faith, ed. E. C. Hobbs (Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1956), 17–24; Patrick F. Houlihan, Wit and Humour in Ancient Egypt (London: Rubicon, 2001), 102; Diane Flores, “The Topsy-Turvy World,” in Egypt, Israel, and the Ancient Mediterranean World: Studies in Honor of Donald B. Redford, ed. Gary N. Knoppers and Antoine Hirsch (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 252. 23.  Brunner-Traut also suggests that the illustrations may have adorned the walls of children’s rooms in DeM: Emma Brunner-Traut, “Tiergeschichten in Bildern aus dem Alten Ägypten,” Lao-graphia 22 (1965): 58–71 (61). See also Joanne Backhouse, “Figured Ostraca from DeM,” in Current Research in Egyptology 2011: Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Symposium Durham University, ed. Heba Abd El Gawad et al. (Oxford: Oxbow, 2011), 32–33. 24.  The myth of Tefnut’s return is preserved in three Demotic papyri and a fragmentary Greek translation. 25.  For the drawings relating to the cat and eagle dispute, see Babcock, “Anthropomorphized Animal Imagery,” 113–14 and Plates 46, 47, 49, and 50. 26.  For Brunner-Traut’s reconstruction of these folk tales, see Altägyptische Märchen (The Myth of the Eye of the Sun: 120–25; The Swallow and the Sea: 126–27; The Mother Vulture and the Mother Cat: 128–30; The Seeing Bird and the Hearing Bird: 130–33; The Mouse and the Lion: 133–36); cf. also idem, Altägyptische Tiergeschichten und Fabel, 4th ed. (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1974), 34–40. Her wonderful children’s book, Tiergeschiten aus dem Pharaonenland (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1977), is written in a similar vein.

S

(3)

(4)

The First Mickey Mouse

207

to fill in the gaps between the motifs in the faunal drawings and the attempt to reconstruct a storyline is frequently more a function of imaginative interpretation than a literal reading of the data.27 Some scholars suggest that the stories were designed not only as entertainment, but also as morality tales.28 However, didactic fables with animal heroes only emerge in Egypt around a thousand years later. Training exercises or practicing new motifs: (a) The pictures on the papyri suggest that the artists practiced on ostraca—i.e., the latter served as drafts for the papyri— or were student/novice exercises. However, the quality of the ostraca drawings and their attention to detail makes this argument difficult. (b) The ostraca served the DeM artists as “trial runs” for new motifs and styles.29 This theory is also problematic. While we know that Egyptian artists used ostraca for practice, subsequently transferring these scenes to official artworks, no evidence exists that they served as a surface for practicing innovation or creativity. Social parody or satire directed against the upper classes— royalty and the aristocracy: The majority of the faunal images being based on official subjects or imitating the official models found in temples and in royal/noblemen’s tombs (see above), numerous scholars argue that they represent parodies of elitist values and customs. Reflected in both official art and Egyptian wisdom instructions and autobiographical texts, these include Pharaoh defeating the forces of evil as embodied in Egypt’s

27.  For a critique of Brunner-Traut, see van Essche, “Le chat dans les fables et les contes,” 73–77. 28.  Brunner-Traut (“Fabel,” 71–72) contends that all the fables Thoth tells Tefnut in the Myth of the Eye of the Sun are morality tales designed to convey the message that those who do evil will be punished. For Mesopotamian fables from the mid-third millennium BCE onwards, see Williams, “The Fable in the Ancient Near East,” 5–6, 12–17. While Williams also cites Egyptian texts from the New Kingdom period that he identifies as fables, these do not include tales with faunal protagonists; cf. also Nili Samet, “Mesopotamian Wisdom,” in The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Wisdom Literature, ed. Samuel L. Adams and Matthew Goff (Hoboken: Wiley, 2020), 340. 29.  Kathlyn M. Cooney, “Apprenticeship and Figured Ostraca from the Ancient Egyptian Village of DeM,” in Archaeology and Apprenticeship: Body Knowledge, Identity, and Communities of Practice, ed. Willeke Wendrich (Tuscon: University of Arizona Press, 2012), 163–66.

208

Human Interaction with the Natural World

enemies; attitudes towards prisoners of war; eating etiquette; entertainment customs; traits such as self-control, and so on.30 The ludicrous anthropomorphized animals thus mock royalty and the aristocracy—and perhaps even religious authority.31 Most scholars reject the idea of satire, here, which goes beyond parody.32 “Upside-Down World” Explanation Representing social, political, and religious reversals, the anthropomorphized animal images are a form of critique and protest, depicting an imaginary upside-down world in which animals act like human beings: predators (cats, jackals/foxes, lions) turning into their victims’ servants, carers, or playmates and the weak (mouse, geese) becoming powerful or victors and playing noble roles (judges, kings, gods), and so on.

30.  See, for example, Babcock, “Anthropomorphized Animal Imagery,” 13, 37; David O’Connor, “Satire or Parody? The Interaction of the Pictorial and the Literary in Turin Papyrus 55001,” in Ramesside Studies in Honour of K. A. Kitchen, ed. Mark Collier and Steven Snape (Bolton: Rutherford, 2011), 371–78; Viebke Berens, “The Ramesside Satirical Papyri: Revealing the Nature of Ancient Egyptian Satire,” Paper Research Tools in Egyptology: Leiden, 2014: 10 (available online at https://academia .edu/30800265). 31.  The claim that the drawings also parody religious institutions rests on the occurrence of religious subjects on the ostraca—a mouse/ jackal god sitting in a sanctuary being carried by jackal/fox priests (Fig. 21); the trial of a hippopotamus and raven balanced on a pair of scales shaped like a hieroglyph denoting life—which may mock the Egyptian belief in the judgment of the dead, in which the deceased’s heart is weighed against Maat, the goddess of judgment, or a feather symbolizing her (Figs. 19 and 27; cf. Raymond O. Faulkner, The Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead [Austin: University of Texas Press, 1990], 29–31). The faunal drawings in later temples—such as that depicting a mouse mistress attended by a cat and entertained by musicians in the form of a crocodile and young girl on the wall of the Medamud temple (seventh century BCE) (see Houlihan, The Animal World, 216, Fig. 153)—suggest that the drawings may bear religious connotations. 32.  While parody imitates the original in exaggerated fashion in order to mock or entertain, satire reworks the original so as to expose and critique its flaws. Meskell thus maintains that, leveling social and political criticism against the royal house and priestly elite, the drawings may be satirical; Lynn Meskell, Object Worlds in Ancient Egypt Material Biographies Past and Present (Oxford: Berg, 2004), 152–69.

S

The First Mickey Mouse

209

Prevalent in the speculative wisdom literature of the early Middle Kingdom (Twelfth Dynasty, second millennium BCE), the topsy-turvy world motif served as a response to the anarchy and chaos that dominated the country in the wake of the collapse of the central government during the First Intermediate Period (2200–2020 BCE) prior to the emergence of the Middle Kingdom. Inter alia, this literature sought to expose and criticize the existing social, religious, and political state, the blame for which was laid directly (The Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage [Ipuwer]) or indirectly (The Prophecies of Neferti) at the feet of the reigning monarch.33 This theme runs like a scarlet thread in the Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage, for example: Indeed, poor men have become owners of wealth, he who could not make for himself sandals owns riches. (2,4–5) Indeed, the well born man…passes without being recognized, the child of his lady has become the son of his maid. (2,14) Behold, she who has no box is a possessor of a coffer, she who looked at her face in the water is possessor of a mirror. (8,5) Indeed, the land turns around like a potter’s wheel. (2,9)

A similar tone resonates in The Complaints of Khakheperre-sonb: He who used to give commands is (now) one to whom commands are given. (verso 2–3) Behold, the affairs of the slave are like those of his master. (verso 6)

It recurs in The Prophecies of Neferti: I show you the land in turmoil, The weak of arm is (now) the possessor of an arm, One salutes him who (formerly) saluted. I show you the lowly as superior…

33.  Ipuwer attacks the king directly: “Authority, Knowledge and Truth are with you, yet confusion is what you set throughout the land, and the noise of tumult…” (12,11–13,9). Neferti portrays a future charismatic king who will deliver the country from its plight, hinting at a critical attitude towards the current incumbent (58–71).

210

Human Interaction with the Natural World The poor man will make wealth, The great one will [pray] to live. The beggar will eat bread, The slaves will be exalted(?). (54–57)34

These lines immediately bring to mind the pictures of cats attending mice or cats and jackals herding geese. The scene of the hippopotamus safely ensconced in the tree top gathering fruits while the bird tries to climb up on a ladder also belongs to this category. The anthropomorphized animal drawings thus illustrate the social, religious, and political criticism, accompanied by a satirical tone, expressed in Egyptian literature. Although the topsy-turvy world is a common theme in texts written against the backdrop of the collapse of the central government during the First Immediate rather than the New Kingdom period, the majority of the extant copies derive from the days of the New Kingdom Eighteenth–Nineteenth dynasties.35 The DeM scribes and artists appear to have been familiar with this model. Many of the copies discovered at the village, in particular those belonging to the scribal circle, are similarly informed by mockery, satire, and on occasion by criticism.36 An example is the Satire of the Trades, a 34.  For translations of The Complaints of Khakheperre-sonb, The Prophecies of Neferti, and The Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage, see COS 1.42:93–98, 1.44:104– 106, 1.45:106–110 (Shupak). For other characteristics of this corpus, see Nili Shupak, “The Egyptian ‘Prophetic’ Writings and Biblical Wisdom Literature,” BN 54 (1990): 81–102; idem, “The Egyptian ‘Prophecy’: A Reconsideration,” in “Von reichlich ägyptischem Verstande”: Festschrift für Waltraud Guglielmi zum 65. Geburstag, ed. Karol Zibelius-Chen and Hans W. Fischer-Elfert, Marburger altertumskundliche Abhandlungen 11 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2006), 133–44. 35.  The Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage has been preserved on an Eighteenthor Nineteenth-Dynasty papyrus; the manuscripts of The Prophecies of Neferti dating from the Eighteenth Dynasty, the ostraca fragments and writing tablets to the New Kingdom; and the Complaints of Khakheperre-sonb surviving on an Eighteenth-Dynasty writing tablet. This thesis opposes the view of Brunner-Traut (Altägyptische Tiergeschichten, 27–28) and Babcock (“Anthropomorphized Animal Imagery,” 29–32, 136–37), both of whom deny any links between the upside-down world literary pattern and the anthropomorphized animal drawings. The former contends that the literary pattern preceded the DeM paintings by centuries, the latter that some of the scenes do not portray role reversals. In my opinion, all the paintings relate to situations that run counter to nature. 36.  For an encompassing discussion of these compositions, see Ogden Goelet, “The Literary Environment of the Age of Ramesses III,” in Ramesses III: The Life and Times of Egypt’s Last Hero, ed. Eric H. Cline and David O’Connor (Ann Arbor:

S

The First Mickey Mouse

211

paean to the scribal profession as superior to all others, whose sufferings and hardships it exaggerates and ridicules. In The Satirical Letter (Pap. Anastasi I), the scribe Hori mocks his colleague Amenemope, calling his competence into question. The Encomium of the Sages (Pap. Chester Beatty IV, vv. 2,5–3,10) lauds the eight prominent Egyptian scribes-sages of times past, its author going one step further in opposing the traditional esteem for funeral and burial customs on the grounds that tombs are transitory while literary creations commemorate their writers.37 Some of these texts were in fact composed by the DeM residents themselves. Menna the draughtsman and Amen-nakhte the scribe-sage both wrote letters to their sons in which they employed humor and scorn to criticize the latter’s reckless and unprincipled behavior.38 Humor, mockery, and irony—and even admonition and criticism—were thus not foreign to the DeM scribes and artists, who gained their specialized knowledge through the local educational framework. At least some of these texts almost certainly formed part of the learning corpus. The historical developments towards the end of the Twentieth Dynasty in Egypt—in particular, the fall of the central government in the wake of foreign and domestic issues—also resemble those of the First Intermediate period. However, in contrast to the authors of the second-millennium BCE Egyptian Speculative-Wisdom corpus, who adopted the upsidedown world literary pattern in order to protest the hardships of the times, the DeM artists and scribes were afraid to directly and openly ridicule the political and religious (temple priests) leadership, being dependent upon

University of Michigan Press, 2012), 342–52; Waltraud Guglielmi, “Das Lachen der Götter und Menchen am Nil: Die religiöse des Lachen im und alltagsweltlische Bedeutung alten Ägypten,” in Vom Lachen: Einen Phänomen auf der Spur, ed. Thomas Vogel (Tübingen: Attempto–Studium Generale, 1992), 163–67. 37.  The faunal images also deride the traditional perception of death, at whose core lies the Egyptian belief in the judgment of the dead (see n. 31). The collection known as LEM also belongs to this category. Forming part of the school curriculum, these examples frequently depict student life, student–teacher relations, and the student experience humorously and exaggeratedly: see, for example, LEM: 164 (Pap. Anastasi IV 8,8–9); ibid., 235 (Pap. Anastasi V 10, 7–8); ibid., 320 (Pap. Sallier I 7,11–8,2). 38.  Menna thus compares his son’s flight to the delta region to the “wanderings of a swallow with her fledglings”; Amen-nakhte describes his arrogant son as one who “go(es) around like a transport ship,” his heart—“a monument of 30 cubits”— contrasting with his body, which is “(weak) like cord”; see McDowell, Village Life in Ancient Egypt, 144–47.

212

Human Interaction with the Natural World

them for their income. They thus resorted to veiled criticism via topsyturvy faunal iconography.39 What were these historical events? The village was established at the beginning of the Eighteenth Dynasty, reaching the peak of its prosperity during the Nineteenth Dynasty. Following Ramesses III’s (1182–1152 BCE) ascent to the throne, however, Egypt began experiencing foreign and domestic problems that weakened the central government.40 Foreigners and other hostile forces threatened the country: The Philistines and Sea Peoples on the northwestern border, the Shasu on the east, and Libyan tribes and other nomads on the west. Reaching Egypt’s southwestern border, the latter menaced the artists and tomb-builders in the Valley of the Kings and Queens and their families in the village during the reign of Ramesses IX through to the end of the Twentieth Dynasty (1125–1070 BCE). Documents from DeM attest to work hiatuses due to “fear of the enemy”—i.e., the Libyans/desert nomads. Internally, the central government waned, local officials—in particular the high priesthood of Amun in Thebes—gaining status by appropriating state land for temples and placing staff into senior administrative positions. Concrete evidence of this process is found in the attempt on Ramesses III’s life towards the end of his reign. The undermining of royal

39.  Houlihan suggests that the “animated pictures” served as a response to conditions under the Twentieth Dynasty: Patrick F. Houlihan, “The Figured Ostracon with a Humorous Scene of Judgment,” MUSE: Annual of the Museum of Art and Archaeology 25 (1991): 32–33. In his survey, Berens concludes that no definitive decision can be reached, it being best in the meantime to regard the artifacts as “merely amusing artistic works that satirized the foolishness of humankind” (“The Ramesside Satirical Papyri,” 11). 40.  My focus is on events of significance for life at DeM. For a comprehensive discussion of the Ramesside period and the problems that led to the collapse of the Egyptian hegemony in the southern Levant, see Leonard H. Lesko, “Egypt in the 12th Century B.C,” in The Crisis Years: The 12th Century from Beyond the Danube to the Tigris, ed. William A. Ward and Martha Sharp Youkowsky (Dubuque: Kendall Hunt, 1992), 151–56; J. van Dijk, “The Amarna Period and the Later New Kingdom,” in The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Egypt, ed. Ian Shaw (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 302–9; Carolyn R. Higginbotham, “The Administrative Structure under Ramesses III,” in Cline and O’Connor, ed., Ramesses III, 66–100; Christopher J. Eyre, “Society, Economy and Administrative Process in Late Ramesside Egypt,” in ibid., 101–50; Kenneth A. Kitchen, “Ramesses III and the Ramesside Period,” in ibid., 7–22; Meindert Dijkstra, “Canaan in the Transition from the Late Bronze to the Early Iron Age from an Egyptian Perspective,” in The Land of Canaan in the Late Bronze, ed. Lester L. Grabbe (London: Bloomsbury, 2017), 59–75.

S

The First Mickey Mouse

213

power heightened administrative corruption and loss of control over the economy across the country.41 These factors had an immediate impact upon the income-earners in DeM. As the diary kept by the cemetery’s chief scribe, Amen-nakhte, attests, their salaries—paid monthly by the central authorities in the form of a grain ration—were stopped in the twenty-ninth year of Ramesses III. The artists and craftsmen declared a strike, this being followed by further work stoppages as their payments continued to be paid irregularly over the next couple of years. Complaints were also lodged with the local officials. Towards the end of the Twentieth Dynasty, Ramesses XI’s (ca. 1100– 1070 BCE) sovereignty was reduced to Lower Egypt. Libyan bands continued to harass the workers on the western front, such that their standard of living deteriorated. Tomb robbery also became commonplace, some of the workers themselves participating in the practice. In order to restore order, Ramesses XI appears to have invited Pa-Nekhesi, the Nubian ruler’s right-hand man, to Thebes. Clashing with Amenhotep, Amun’s high priest, the latter sought to restrict his authority. In consequence, the workers began abandoning the village and seeking new abodes in Medinat Habu and nearby regions. By the beginning of the Twenty-First Dynasty, all work in the Valley of the Kings and Queens had ceased. The village was finally abandoned 450 years after its establishment. Egypt’s political, economic, and cultural decline during the Twentieth Dynasty, from the reign of Ramesses III onwards, closely parallels that of the First Intermediate period, as reflected in the speculative-wisdom corpus. This includes the following motifs: (a)

(b)

The invasion by desert tribes and other hostile forces that inflicted damage and threatened security. In the speculativewisdom texts: Asiatic infiltration—Neferti 18–19, 29–33, 63–66; Ipuwer 1, 10; 3, 1. During the Ramesside period: incursion by Libyan tribes and desert nomads that endangered the security of the DeM artists and craftsmen, that is, the royal-cemetery builders, and their families. Economic hardship and loss of income. In the speculativewisdom texts: Neferti 23, 46–47, 50–51; Ipuwer 3, 10. During the Ramesside period: economic crisis, shrinking of state resources, and the cessation of grain rations to workers.

41.  One financial corruption affair dogged Egypt for around a decade from the twenty-eighth year of Ramesses III through to Ramesses VI’s reign.

214

Human Interaction with the Natural World

(c)

(d)

(e)

Corruption, plunder, and crime. In the speculative-wisdom texts: Neferti 47–50; Ipuwer 1, 1; 5, 11–12; 6, 11; Khakheperre-sonb recto 11–12; verso 2–3, 5. During the Ramesside period: robbery in the village, plunder of the tombs, intercourse with married women, and ongoing national corruption.42 Civil war. In the speculative-wisdom texts: Neferti 44–45; Ipuwer 1, 6; 3, 11; 5, 10. During the Ramesside period: Clashes between the high priesthood in Thebes and the king’s Nubian representative during Ramesses XI’s reign. Weakening of the central government and anarchy throughout the country. In the speculative-wisdom texts: Neferti 22, 24, 38; Ipuwer 3, 10; 7, 2–3; 9, 2. During the Ramesside period: the waning of royal power from the last years of Ramesses III until the end of the Twentieth Dynasty. Conclusion

I suggest that the DeM artists expressed in visual pictures what the authors of the Egyptian wisdom literature conveyed through words, each according to his area of expertise and the circumstances of his time. The speculative-wisdom served as royal propaganda and a way of legitimizing the ruling monarch. Protesting against existing conditions, its authors laid the blame at the reigning king’s feet, employing the literary pattern of the upside-down world on the one hand and lauding the acts of the savior-king (i.e. the legitimized king) who would deliver the land and its inhabitants from their plight and restore order on the other.43 The iconographic topsy-turvy world served the DeM artists, in contrast, as a disguise under which they could both express their criticism of and disappointment with a weak leadership incapable of ensuring their safety and income, and protest against the corruption and malpractice of top-ranking officials who seized local administrative and religious positions of power. At the same time, however, some of the anthropomorphized animal drawings appear to have functioned as illustrations of folk tales or early myths in similar fashion to those depicting the protagonists of the story

42.  Paul J. Frandsen, “Editing Reality: The Turin Strike Papyrus,” in Studies in Egyptology Presented to Miriam Lichtheim, ed. Sarah Israelit-Groll (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1990), 193–95. 43.  See n. 33, above.

S

The First Mickey Mouse

215

of Tefnut’s return to Egypt.44 In the absence of the sophisticated, versatile visual means at our disposal today, these illustrations breathed life into the tales, stimulating the audience’s imagination. Some may even have been intended as artistic entertainment and “doodling” in moments of boredom or upon return home from a long week’s work. Whatever solution we may adopt in regard to the origin and purpose of the animated pictures, the DeM artists were clearly inventive and gifted with vivid imaginations. Their heritage lives on in cartoons such as Mickey Mouse and the widespread folk tale of the lion and the mouse, versions of which are preserved in Aesop’s sixth-century and Jean de la Fontaine’s seventeenth-century fables.

44.  For the identification of other myths in this regard, see Deborah Sweeny, “Cats and their People at DeM,” in Sitting Beside Lepsius: Studies in Honour of Jaromic Malek at the Griffith Institute, ed. Diana Magee et al. (Leuven: Peeters, 2009), 531–60 (542).

Chapter 15

I T

S W

’ O C

: I *

Nili Samet

The collection referred to as Instructions of Shuruppak is the oldest piece of wisdom known in world literature.1 It contains didactic counsels and proverbs presented as the teachings of a “man of Shuruppak” to his son,2 instructing him a way of life which guarantees prosperity along with moral values. Already in its most ancient version, the Instructions of Shuruppak occur as a classic exemplar of proverb literature, demonstrating all the basic characteristics which will later become trademarks of ancient Near Eastern practical wisdom. 1. Literary and Textual History The Instructions of Shuruppak was popular among the scribes of ancient Mesopotamia. It is known from dozens of manuscripts stemming from various historical periods—from as early as the twenty-fifth century down to the eleventh century—and written in three different languages. The extant manuscripts can be roughly sorted into three major versions: a Sumerian archaic version from the mid-third millennium BCE; a *  For Tova, a modern Lady Wisdom, with gratitude and appreciation. 1.  The Egyptian Instructions of Hardjedef are ascribed to a mid-third-millennium BCE prince, but their earliest known manuscripts are much later (Wolfgang Helck, Die Lehre des Djedefhor und die Lehre eines Vaters an seinen Sohn [Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1984], 1), and their time of composition is disputed (Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, Volume I: The Old and Middle Kingdoms [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973], 6–7; Günter Burkard and Heinz-Josef Thissen, Einführung in die altägyptische Literaturgeschichte, vol. 1 [Berlin: LIT, 2012], 81). 2.  On the title “the man of Shuruppak,” see below.

S

Instructions of Shuruppak

217

Sumerian classic version from the beginning of the second millennium BCE; and an Akkadian translation currently known from the end of the second millennium, which in turn gave rise to a Hurrian translation. The archaic version is known from two manuscripts, one from AbuSalabikh (ca. 2500 BCE) and one from Adab (ca. 2400 BCE). Judging by the limited information which can be gleaned from the fragmentary Adab tablet, the two texts probably share a very similar textual tradition. In terms of structure, the archaic version consists of a prologue, five proverbial units, and an epilogue.3 The prologue introduces the teaching sage as “(the man of) Shuruppak,”4 supplying us with several biographic details, as follows:5 The wise one, the learned one, who dwelled in the land, (the man of) Shuruppak, the…,6 the wise one, the learned one, who dwelled in the land, (the man of) Shuruppak gave instructions to his son: My son, let me give you instructions, let attention be paid to them!

Next follow five units of sayings, each marked by the introductory formula “(The man of) Shuruppak gave instructions to his son.” In two cases this formula is accompanied by an appeal to the son: “My son, let me give you instructions, (let attention be paid to them).”7 The epilogue then concludes the piece by referring to the instructions as a “gift of words,” ordering

3.  See Bendt Alster, Wisdom of Ancient Sumer (Bethesda: CDL, 2005): Prologue: 176:1–177:5. Proverbial Unit 1: 177:6–178:15. Proverbial Unit 2: 178:16–25; Proverbial Unit 3: 178:26–180:45. Proverbial Unit 4: 180:46–185:144. Proverbial Unit 5: 185:146–165. Epilogue: 185:166–171. 4.  “The man of Shuruppak” in the Adab ms., and “Shuruppak” in the Abu-Salabih manuscript. See discussion below. 5.  Alster, Wisdom of Ancient Sumer, 176:1–177:5; 196:1–9. References to Instructions of Shuruppak in this study follow Alster’s 2005 edition. Translations are mine unless otherwise stated. The reader is encouraged to consult also the following translations: C. Wilcke, “Philologische Bemerkungen zum Rat des Šuruppag und Versuch einer neuen Übersetzung,” ZA 68 (1978): 196–232; Miguel Civil, “Notes on the Instructions of Šuruppak,” JNES 34 (1984): 281–98; Alster, Wisdom of Ancient Sumer; and ETCSL’s electronic translation: http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl. cgi?text=t.5.6.1#. 6.  The elided word here is the enigmatic term UR2.AŠ, probably an epithet for Shuruppak, whose exact meaning is unknown. See the discussion below. 7.  The shorter variant appears at the head of units 2 and 4 (ll. 16, 46), and the longer one—at the beginning of units 3 and 5 (ll. 26–28, 146–148). Unit 1 follows immediately after the prologue, which serves as its introduction.

218

Human Interaction with the Natural World

that attention will be paid to them, and adding the concluding remark “Shuruppak gave instructions to his son.”8 The division of the sayings in this version into five units is not entirely arbitrary; some of them tend to have specific emphases. The first unit deals mostly with properly managing one’s real estate and social relations. The second is focused on admonitions against criminal activity. The fourth unit presents only a few instructions at its beginning, then turning to other wisdom items such as proverbs and short quotes of various genres.9 The fifth unit, which also includes proverbs rather than instructions, seems to be especially interested in royal issues. Half a millennium later, manuscripts of a more elaborate, developed version of Instructions of Shuruppak were copied in their dozens in Old Babylonian schools.10 This classic Sumerian recension is approximately 1.5 times longer that the archaic one, with three lengthy proverbial units framed by an expanded prologue and epilogue.11 The expanded prologue is more informative compared to its archaic counterpart, locating the mysterious “man of Shuruppak” within Mesopotamian mythological history: here, this sage is none other than the father of the famous flood survivor, Ziusudra.12 8.  Alster, Wisdom of Ancient Sumer, 187. 9.  For the difference between these sub-types of practical wisdom, see below, under Sapiential Content. 10.  For a full list see Alster, Wisdom of Ancient Sumer, 49–53. 11.  See ibid.: Prologue: 56:1–57:10. Unit 1: 58:11–71:75. Unit 2: 72:76–81:145. Unit 3: 82:146–100:282. Epilogue: 100:283–290. 12.  Ibid., 32, 103–104, believed that this identity of the father is implied already in the archaic version, but his only evidence is a problematic interpretation of the Sumerian ambiguous term UR2.AŠ. Better interpretations of UR2.AŠ are suggested by Steinkeller (cited by J. R. Davila, “The Flood Hero as King and Priest,” JNES 54 [1995]: 199–204 [202, esp. n. 21]); Manfred Krebernik, “Die Texte aus Fāra und Tell Abū Salābīh,” in Mesopotamien: Spaturuk-Zeit und Fruhdynastische Zeit, ed. Jesef Bauer, Robert K. Englund, and Manfred Krebernik (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998), 319 n. 779; and Y. S. Chen, The Primeval Flood Catastrophe: Origins and Early Development in Mesopotamian Traditions (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 9, 132–35. Chen also shows that the flood motif was unknown in Mesopotamia prior to Old Babylonian times, thus ruling out Alster’s interpretation. In fact, Alster himself, in an earlier work, took a stance similar to Chen’s (Bendt Alster, The Instructions of Shuruppak: A Sumerian Proverb Collection [Copenhagen: Akademisk, 1974], 25). The flood setting should therefore be taken as an innovation of the classic version. On Ziusudra, the Sumerian flood hero, see Andrew R. George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, vol. 1 (New York: Penguin, 2003), 152–55; Chen, The Primeval Flood Catastrophe, 129.

S

Instructions of Shuruppak

219

The three proverbial units each have an opening and a concluding formula. The opening formula reads:13 The man of Shuruppak gave instructions to his son. The man of Shuruppak, the son of Ubar-tutu, gave instructions to his son Ziusudra: My son, let me give you instructions! Let my instructions be taken. Ziusudra, let me speak words to you, let attention be paid to them. Do not neglect my instructions, do not transgress the words I speak! The instructions of a father are precious, you should comply with them!

The concluding formula states again that “the man of Shuruppak, the son of Ubar-tutu, gave instructions to his son Ziusudra.” The epilogue, in keeping with its earlier counterpart, refers to the instructions as “a gift of words,” and adds a recommendation that they be brought “into the palace.”14 As for the sayings themselves, here the editors of the classic recension generally followed the archaic order, while expanding the counsels and introducing further maxims of their own.15

13.  See Alster, Wisdom of Ancient Sumer, 57:6–58:14; 72:76–73:83; 82:146– 83:153, including slight variant differences among the three openings. Note that the opening formula of the first unit could be considered part of the prologue, and the concluding formula of the third unit is assimilated into the epilogue. 14.  The last line of this version (ibid., 100:290) is dedicated to the praise of Nisaba, the scribes’ goddess. This is a customary conclusion of literary texts of various types and should not be regarded an integral part of the work itself. 15.  The first unit of the classic version generally follows the sequence of units 1–3 of the archaic version, with a block of newly added sayings at its end (Alster, Wisdom of Ancient Sumer, 66:50–71:72, with the exclusion of 69:62). The second unit of the classic version begins with materials from the fourth unit in the archaic version, then adding new sayings which form the majority of this unit. The third unit of the classic version includes mainly new materials, integrating some sayings from the fourth unit of the archaic version at its head (and later), and some from the fifth unit of the archaic version towards its end. The general impression is that the editors of the classic version were stricter in following the earlier traditions at the beginning of their piece, and postponed most of their innovations to its later parts, where the older version is only loosely followed. The same is true for the sequence of sayings within each unit: generally speaking, older material appears at the beginning, followed by new sayings. Being somewhat intuitive, this pattern is typical of editorial activity from different cultures and periods. For an in-depth analysis of the additions and innovations in the Old Babylonian version, see Walther Sallaberger’s instructive discussion in his “Updating Primeval Wisdom: The Instructions of Šuruppak in Its Early Dynastic and Old Babylonian Contexts,” in In the Lands of Sumer and Akkad, New Studies, a Conference in Honor of Jacob Klein on the Occasion of His Eightieth

220

Human Interaction with the Natural World

Akkadian translations of the Instructions of Shuruppak are presently known from three sources: a small Middle-Assyrian fragment found in Assur; a very fragmentary Middle-Babylonian tablet; and a bilingual Akkadian-Hurrian fragment, probably from Middle Bronze Age Syria.16 Scholars assume however that the Akkadian translation is older than the extant manuscripts. The characterization of the two unilingual tablets as Middle-Assyrian and Middle-Babylonian respectively is based mainly on paleography and linguistic features. A more precise date is currently impossible to determine, although it has been suggested that the Assyrian tablet should be dated to the days of Tiglath-pileser I (1115–1077 BCE).17 While the structure, scope and exact content of the Akkadian translations cannot be reconstructed from the texts in their current state of preservation, several aspects of the Akkadian version are still discernable. First, the three sources at our disposal probably do not represent the exact same Akkadian version, as they diverge in several cases.18 Second, as one might expect, the Akkadian translations follow the classic version with all its innovations rather than the archaic one. It includes new sayings introduced by the classic version,19 and presents the protagonist as father to the flood’s hero, referred to here by his Akkadian name, Ut-napišti. 2. Mythological Framework The instructions are presented as the teaching of a father to his son,20 a pattern which dominates wisdom collections throughout the Fertile Birthday, ed. Mordechai Cogan (Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 2018), 7‒21. 16.  Alster, Wisdom of Ancient Sumer, 204; 207–208. 17.  Alster, ibid., building on Stefano Seminara, La versione accadica del Lugal-e (Rome: Università degli studi di Roma “La Sapienza,” 2001), 40. 18.  Alster, Wisdom of Ancient Sumer. 19.  See, for instance, the obverse of the Akkadian tablet VAT 10151 (W. G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature [Oxford: Clarendon, 1960], 95), which includes sayings that are known only from the classic version, in the exact same order (except for a one-line omission). For the other Akkadian texts, see, e.g., Alster, Wisdom of Ancient Sumer, 70–73, where BM 50522+ follows the classic version. Of special importance for this discussion are the religiously oriented sayings which were added by the authors of the classic version, and are found later also in the Akkadian translation. See the discussion below, under Ethics and Theology. 20.  In addition to the address to the son in the prologue, epilogue, and introductions of each unit, the appeals “my son!” and “my little one!” occur throughout the work. Alster, Wisdom of Ancient Sumer, 40–41, attempts to explain their distribution within the piece.

S

Instructions of Shuruppak

221

Crescent.21 In most manuscripts from all periods, the father is referred to as “the man of Shuruppak.”22 This epithet takes the term “Shuruppak” to be a toponym rather than a personal name, in accordance with its regular use in Sumerian tradition. Only one manuscript of the archaic version seems to treat “Shuruppak” as the father’s personal name, perhaps conceiving him as the city’s eponym.23 A more accurate title for the entire piece would therefore be “Instructions of the Man of Shuruppak,” but 21.  For Mesopotamian examples, see, e.g., Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature, 103:81; 106; Yoram Cohen, Wisdom from the Late Bronze Age (Atlanta: SBL, 2013), 81–128. Egyptian examples include, inter alia, instructions of Hardjedef, Amenmhet, Any and many more (Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, Volume I, 58, 136; Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, Volume II: The New Kingdom [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978], 135–46). For biblical examples see Prov 1:8; 1:10; 2:1; 3:1; 4:1 et passim; Eccl 12:12. See further Michael Fox, Proverbs 1–9, AB 18A (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), 80–82. Additional examples could be found in other wisdom texts such as Ahiqar and Ben Sira. A detailed list with discussion is suggested by Alster (Wisdom of Ancient Sumer, 42–45). 22.  This title is ascribed to the father in the following: (1) in one manuscript of the archaic version (Alster, Wisdom of Ancient Sumer, 196, ll. 1.3–5; note the determinative -ki which indicates a toponym. An implied gentilic is assumed); (2) in the majority of manuscripts of the classic version (Alster, Wisdom of Ancient Sumer, 56:5 with score; 57:6–7 with score; 71:73 with score, et passim); (3) in the Akkadian version, judging from the preserved lines (Alster, The Instructions of Shuruppak, 73, with the Akkadian gentilic). 23.  See Alster, Wisdom of Ancient Sumer, 176:2 et passim, and compare Sallaberger’s instructive discussion (“Updating Primeval Wisdom,” 9). It is possible to explain this variant as reflecting an abbreviation of the gentilic epithet “the Shuruppakian” known from most manuscripts (so Alster, Wisdom of Ancient Sumer, contra Alster, The Instructions of Shuruppak). However, a tradition regarding an antediluvian figure named Shuruppak also occurs in a dynastic chronicle from Old-Babylonian Sippar (Stephen H. Langdon, The Weld-Blundell Collection, OECT 2 [London: Oxford University Press, 1923]; Jean-Jacques Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles [Atlanta: SBL, 2004], 57–58). The existence of two unrelated witnesses seems to testify to the integrity of this tradition (contra Thorkild Jacobsen, The Sumerian King List [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1939], 76, n. 32, citing Landsberger; see also George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, 155). Note that among the classic version’s manuscripts, the name Shuruppak may sporadically appear without the determinative -ki, (e.g., Alster, Wisdom of Ancient Sumer, 82:146, ms. T6), but these are mere variants which should not be understood as reflecting a different interpretation of the name. For a recent discussion of this issue with somewhat different conclusions see Chen, The Primeval Flood Catastrophe, 132–54.

222

Human Interaction with the Natural World

because this interpretation is not unanimously shared by all manuscripts, the common label “Instructions of Shuruppak” is followed here.24 As mentioned above, (the man of) Shuruppak is assigned, from the classic version on, an honorable lineage. Father to famous Ziusudra=Utnapishti, he is located at a key point in Mesopotamian mythological history, before the great flood swept over the earth. In addition to his identification as Ziusudra’s father, the classic version also mentions the Man of Shuruppak’s own father, named Ubar-Tutu, thus presenting us with a tripartite royal dynasty: Ubar-Tutu—Man of Shuruppak—Ziusudra. Ubar-Tutu is otherwise known as an antediluvian king from the city of Shuruppak,25 but his exact place in the Shuruppak dynasty varies among the different traditions: he may also be presented as Ziusudra’s father rather than grandfather, or simply as the last king before the flood with no further progeny.26 The placement of Shuruppak’s instructions within this antediluvian setting is undoubtedly intended to lend them further prestige and authority. Not only are they presented, from the classic version on, as a king’s teaching to his (crown) prince, they also gain the reputation of a most ancient legacy, having its origins in primordial human history. 3. Sapiential Content The instructions themselves cover typical core-issues of wisdom literature, such as appropriate family relations, proper management of one’s 24.  Note that “The man of Shuruppak” occurs also in the Standard Babylonian version of the Gilgamesh Epic (George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, 704, l. 23). There, however, it is used as an epithet for Ut-Napishiti, while here “the man of Shuruppak” figures as Ut-Napishti’s father. See further Chen, The Primeval Flood Catastrophe, 143–44. 25.  Or, according to Berossus, from the city of Larak (Stanley M. Burstein, The Babyloniaca of Berossus [Malibu: Undena, 1978], 19:10). 26.  The main sources mentioning Ubar-Tutu are chronographic lists. See Jacobsen, The Sumerian King List, 58 n. 107; 59–60 n. 113; 75:32–77:33; Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles, 57, 120, 121, 128, 129; Chen, The Primeval Flood Catastrophe, 140–54. Ubar-Tutu also occurs in the Standard Babylonian Gilgamesh epic (George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, 666–67, 690–91, 704–5), and, in a Greek guise, in Berossus’ Babyloniaca (Burstein, The Babyloniaca of Berossus, 19:10). Chen believes that Ubar-Tutu is nothing but a ghost character, owing its existence to a misinterpretation of a single Sumerian term in the archaic version of Instructions of Shuruppak. However, given the relatively broad distribution of this name in different sources from different periods, it would seem more likely that UbarTutu is a legitimate member of Mesopotamian mythological genealogy, even if not as well-known as his successor Ziusudra.

S

Instructions of Shuruppak

223

business and real estate, and suitable social behavior. Very few instructions address a ruler or have the royal court at their background.27 In most cases, they portray a middle-class young man who owns a field, a house,28 and a family,29 as well as workers, slaves and cattle.30 An interesting indication for this socioeconomic context may be found in instructions dealing with livestock and domesticated animals. For instance: At the time of the harvest, do not buy a donkey.31 Do not buy an ox that spreads terror. Do not buy a vicious bull; (it means) a destroyed cattle pen.32 Do not buy a steppe-ass. You will (have to) spend (the whole) day at its side.33 An unknown dog is evil; an unknown man [is horrible].34

Some of the instructions that focus on domesticated animals give advice on how to purchase and take good care of them; others use them as allegory for various human situations and scenes; and sometimes both meanings seem to co-occur. Be this as it may, the close familiarity with farm animals as reflected in these instructions indicates a non-royal socioeconomic context. In his thorough discussion of the development of the Instructions of Shuruppak, Sallaberger suggests that the above typical profile of a relatively high-ranked citizen has its background in a specific social status from the Early Dynastic period known as ru lugal. While being relatively 27.  Sallaberger “Updating Primeval Wisdom,” 20‒21. The following sayings seem to reflect a royal viewpoint: Alster, Wisdom of Ancient Sumer, 69:64; 74:94–96 (the latter may alternatively express the simple person’s feelings toward the unexpected behavior of rulers; see Gerhard J. Selz, “Streit herrscht, Gewalt droht: Zu Konfliktregelung und Recht in der frühdynastischen und altakkadischen Zeit,” WZKM 92 [2002]: 174); 88:181–182; and 91:204. Sayings 61:26 and 98:271 should perhaps be added to this list, but their ambiguous content makes it difficult to fully understand their theme and message. 28.  Alster, Wisdom of Ancient Sumer, 59:15–60:18; 98:272–99:263. 29.  Ibid., 86:172–87:174; 180:185–186; 91:202–203; 92:208–212. 30.  Ibid., 64:41; 65:44–45; 77:119–123; 83:155–85:164; 89:193. 31.  Ibid., 93:216. This is a well-known saying, whose different variants are documented in various wisdom collections. See Cohen, Wisdom from the Late Bronze Age, 94‒95; 112‒13. 32.  Alster, Wisdom of Ancient Sumer, 92:213‒14. The translation of the instructions in this paragraph follow Alster’s. 33.  Ibid., 66:48. As explained by Alster (ibid., 120), this is an admonition against buying a certain type of not-fully-domesticated equid. 34.  Ibid., 99:276. For a different translation see ETCSL.

224

Human Interaction with the Natural World

wealthy, people identified as ru lugal were by no means royals. The same social profile continues to characterize the Instruction’s addressee also in the Old Babylonian version, notwithstanding of the newly addressed royal framework. The typical protagonist of the instructions may at times become subject to lawsuits, slander and disgrace,35 economic inferiority,36 and other incidents that are not typical of royalty.37 This gap between the royal framework and the civil content is in keeping with the diachronic evidence as described above. In their primeval form, the instructions were composed as a teaching of a father from the city of Shuruppak (or, a father named Shuruppak) to his son. Even if one assumes that a royal background is somewhat implied in the archaic version, the protagonist is nowhere therein expressly portrayed as a king. The focus of this version was thus civil, not royal. The royal context was secondarily applied to the instructions by the Old Babylonian scribes who created the classic version, primarily by reworking the prologue and epilogue.38 At the same time, however, these very scribes did not feel the necessity to thoroughly revise the instructions themselves in accordance with their new context, or even to adjust the newly added sayings to this royal framework. The result is a complex wisdom piece which reflects mixed viewpoints. In this respect, Shuruppak’s Instructions may be compared with the Solomonic collections in the biblical book of Proverbs, which, despite their ascription to King Solomon, often reflect the perspective of ordinary Israelites.39 Another aspect of heterogeneity is reflected in the types of sayings included in the Instructions of Shuruppak. A close look at the sayings shows that they are not all made of one cloth. The most prominent type is of course the instructions. Characterized by a moral tone, a conservative message, and a second-person address to their young recipient, the 35.  Ibid., 63:33; 63:36; 69:65–70:66. 36.  Ibid., 60:19–20. 37.  See further discussion ibid., 33. 38.  Note that in addition to identifying the protagonist as an ancient king, the classic version’s editors also added a recommendation to bring the instructions “into the palace” (ibid., 100:285), thus better integrating the epilogue into the collection’s new royal framework. 39.  See Nili Samet, “Redaction Patterns in Biblical Wisdom Literature in Light of the Instructions of Shuruppak,” ZAW 133 (2021): 1–17. In other ancient Near Eastern exemplars of practical wisdom, the narrative framework tends to conform to the content. Egyptian wisdom collections, for instance, usually focus on royal advice when ascribed to kings, and on instructions for high-status courtiers or scribes when ascribed to the latter’s fathers. The same is true for pieces of practical wisdom from other sources, such as Ahiqar.

S

Instructions of Shuruppak

225

instructions typically teach wise, decent behavior and good manners. Next to instructions, other types of wisdom are also discernable, which lack the bold didactic tone of the latter.40 Among these is a short contemplative essay,41 and many proverbs. The latter tend to speak of their protagonists in the third person, suggesting a sober look at life rather than a didactic lecture about it: “Fate is a wet bank; it can make one slip”;42 “When it is about someone else’s bread, (it is easy to) say ‘I will give it to you.’ ”43 They depict, often humorously, stereotypic types such as the fool, the imprudent, and the shameless, or specific professionals such as the wet-nurse and the leather maker and their place in Sumerian society.44 In addition, the collection also includes a few clichés that are often difficult to comprehend, being neither instructions nor proverbs.45 These are probably short quotes of other Sumerian genres, perhaps mythology or hymnology, whose original meaning—in absence of context—escapes us. The integration of such diverse materials into Shuruppak’s Instructions exemplifies the fluidity of the concept of practical wisdom in Sumerian scribal culture in particular,46 and in ancient Near Eastern wisdom tradition in general.47 It is nonetheless noteworthy that most of

40.  See further Alster, Wisdom of Ancient Sumer, 35–36. 41.  Ibid., 96:252–53. Cf. Nili Samet, “Religious Redaction in Qohelet in Light of Mesopotamian Vanity Literature,” VT 6 (2015): 1–16. 42.  Alster, Wisdom of Ancient Sumer, 86:170–71. 43.  Ibid., 74:97. 44.  See respectively Alster, ibid., 76:111–14; 98:264; 76:115–116; 76:109. For the difference in tone and message between instructions and proverbs, see Nili Samet “Family Relations in Mesopotamian Proverb and Instruction Literature” Beit-Mikra 67 (2022): 237–60 (Hebrew). 45.  See, for instance, Alster, Wisdom of Ancient Sumer, 97:260–261. Note the first person, which seems out of place in its current context. 46.  Sumerian proverb collections often include, next to instructions, proverbs and short essays of contemplative wisdom, also quotes of other genres such as law, mythology, or lamentations. Some scholars believe that this diversity is somewhat related to the pedagogical function of proverb collections within scribal education. See Niek Veldhuis, “Sumerian Proverbs in Their Curricular Context,” JAOS 120 (2000): 383–99; Jonathan Taylor, “The Sumerian Proverb Collections,” RA 99 (2005): 21–22; Bendt Alster, Sumerian Proverbs in the Schøyen Collection (Bethesda: CDL, 2007), 6–7, 13–15, 91; Selz, “Streit herrscht, Gewalt droht,” 173–78; Uri Gabbay, “Lamentful Proverbs or Proverbial Laments? Intertextual Connections between Sumerian Proverbs and Emesal Laments,” JCS 63 (2011): 51–64. 47.  Mixed content is very typical, for instance, of the biblical book of Proverbs, which includes proverbs, instructions, riddles, and so on.

226

Human Interaction with the Natural World

the materials of this type are integrated into the later parts of Instructions of Shuruppak, while the first parts include almost only instructions.48 4. Ethics and Theology The morals and social values reflected in the Instructions of Shuruppak are conservative and affirmative of the existing social order. The ideal individual is a cautious, wise male adult who restrains his feelings and speech, avoiding involvement in quarrels or crimes, controlling his drinking habits,49 and thoughtfully managing his real estate and finances.50 His noble qualities include diligence and modesty.51 The ideal family is a hierarchal-patriarchal unit where children respect parents, youngsters obey elders,52 and female members humbly acknowledge their proper place.53 Decent marriage and matrimonial peace are strongly promoted,54 while adultery and sexual involvement with inappropriate women are condemned.55 Such conformist attitudes are common among ancient Near Eastern instruction collections from different places and time-periods. The instructions are usually accompanied by a motive clause,56 whose rhetorical function is to supply a convincing practical rationale for each teaching. For instance:57 48.  For details, see above, under Literary and Textual History. 49.  Alster, Wisdom of Ancient Sumer, 78:126; 93:221. 50.  Ibid., 59:15–60:18; 98:272–99:273. 51.  Ibid., 70:67; 87:175–177. 52.  Ibid., 86:172–87:174; 98:265–270. 53.  Ibid., 66:49; 77:124–78:125; 93:220. 54.  Ibid., 88:185–186; 91:202–3; 93:215. 55.  Ibid., 63:33–34; 66:49; 83:154. 56.  Motive clauses (Begründungssätze) and their function were intensively studied in the context of biblical wisdom. See, e.g., Berend Gemser, “The Importance of the Motive Clause in Old Testament Law,” in Congress Volume in Memoriam Aage Bentzen, VTSup 1 (Leiden: Brill, 1953), 50–66; Rifat Sonsino, Motive Clauses in Hebrew Law: Biblical Forms and Near Eastern Parallels (Chico: Scholars Press, 1980); Roland Murphy, Wisdom Literature: Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Canticles, Ecclesiastes, and Esther (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 6; Ted Hilderbandt, “Motivation and Antithetic Parallelism in Proverbs 10–15,” JETS 35 (1992): 433–44. The centrality of motive clauses to the Instructions of Shuruppak shows that this rhetorical device was not unique to biblical tradition but was rather part of a broader ancient Near Eastern legacy. See further Bendt Alster, “Additional Fragments of the Instructions of Shuruppak,” Aula Orientalis 5 (1987): 199–206 (204 n. 8); Selz, “Streit herrscht, Gewalt droht,” 173–78; Alster, Wisdom of Ancient Sumer, 39–41. For the distribution of motive clauses among the various sections of each edition, see Sallaberger, “Updating Primeval Wisdom.” 57.  Alster, Wisdom of Ancient Sumer, 59:17; 60:19; 65:42–43.

S

Instructions of Shuruppak

227

Do not place a well in your field; people will turn hostile against you. Do not vouch for someone; that man will have a hold on you. Do not speak improperly; later it will lay a trap on you.

This explanatory rhetoric reflects utilitarian ethics typical of ancient Near Eastern proverb literature. The young addressee is eloquently spurred to follow the instructions for his own benefit.58 Thus, stealing is undesirable because one might be caught and become a slave,59 and rape is to be avoided because “the courtyard will learn of it.”60 Similarly, risk-involving altruistic endeavors, such as vouching for someone, feeding a stranger,61 or testifying on behalf of the victim of a quarrel,62 are not recommended. Another theological aspect of the motive clause has to do with the concept known among Biblicists as Tat-Ergehen Zusammenhang.63 This concept assumes that punishment and reward originate directly and immanently from the human act itself, being a kind of natural law rather than the consequence of a transcendent divine intervention. Scholars have pointed to the dominance of this view in the theology of biblical wisdom. The same is true for the Instructions of Shuruppak. Here, deed and consequence are placed side by side not only to teach the young addressee the desirability or undesirability of a given act, but also to demonstrate how the consequence immanently originates from the deed, thus assigning direct responsibility to the human agent. For instance: Do not speak improperly; later it will lay a trap on you.64 Do not curse strongly; it will rebound on you.65

The following admonition presents an especially clear expression of the Tat-Ergehen Zusammenhang theology: My son, do not commit robbery; do not cut yourself with an axe.66

58.  See further Sallaberger, “Updating Primeval Wisdom.” Alster, Wisdom of Ancient Sumer, 31, similarly describes the instructions as reflecting a “modest egoism.” 59.  Alster, Wisdom of Ancient Sumer, 62:28–31. 60.  Ibid., 69:62. 61.  Ibid., 68:60. Note, however, that the exact meaning of this instruction is somewhat unclear. See ibid., 127. 62.  Ibid., 61:22–23. 63.  See Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 91–92, with further literature. 64.  Alster, Wisdom of Ancient Sumer, 65:42–43. Cf. Prov 6:2; 12:13; 18:17. 65.  Ibid., 66:50. 66.  Ibid., 62:31. Cf. Prov 1:18; 26:27.

228

Human Interaction with the Natural World

The identification of this theological feature within the instructions naturally raises the problem of the place of the divine factor within their world. Generally speaking, gods, divine activity and religious elements are very rarely mentioned in Shuruppak’s teachings. They are totally absent from the archaic version, and scarcely occur from the classic version on.67 This state of affairs made Alster describe the Instructions as secular in nature.68 Lately, however, Klein and Samet have drawn attention to the placement of the few references to gods and religious practices in the classic version.69 Only three such sayings occur in this recension, and they all appear toward the end of each proverb-unit, in close proximity to the concluding formula.70 A praise for the god Utu, accompanied by a recommendation to “stand by him,” appears at the very end of Unit 1: The one and only warrior, he alone is the equal of many; the one and only Utu, he alone is equal of many. Standing by the warrior, you shall live! Standing by Utu, you shall live!71

A saying regarding the importance of prayer occurs at the end of Unit 2: Words of prayer bring abundance. Supplication is cool water that soothes the heart.72

An instruction to respect Utu and the personal god appears toward to end of unit 3:73 67.  For details see below. 68.  Alster, Wisdom of Ancient Sumer, 31. 69.  Jacob Klein and Nili Samet, “Religion and Ethics in Sumerian Proverb Literature,” in Marbeh Hokmah: Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East in Loving Memory of Victor Avigdor Hurowitz, ed. S. Yona et al. (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2015), 295–322. Note that in addition to the explicit religious evidence, which is treated by Klein and Samet, Victor A. Hurowitz, “An Underestimated Aspect of Enki/Ea,” JANER 13 (2013): 3–10, has also suggested an implied reference to the god Enki in the classic version of Instructions of Shuruppak. 70.  Note that all three additions appear later in the Akkadian manuscripts. 71.  Alster, Wisdom of Ancient Sumer, 71:69–72. 72.  Ibid., 81:140–141. A single line (142) separates this religious saying and the epilogue. Due to its ambiguous content, it is hard to determine whether it continues the saying under discussion by describing an opposition to prayer, or whether it contains an independent proverb. 73.  Note that this admonition does not appear exactly at the end of the third unit. Six proverbs separate it from the epilogue. However, its reference precisely to Utu, and its location not far from the unit’s end, make it probable that it belongs to the same hand which added the two other religious sayings.

S

Instructions of Shuruppak

229

Do not speak an arrogant word to your mother; that causes hatred against you. Do not ‘take into the mouth’ the words of your mother and the words of your personal god.74 The mother, like Utu, gives birth to the man; the father, like a god, makes him shine. The father is like a god: his words are reliable. You should pay attention to the instructions of the father.75

Lacking from the archaic version, these religious sayings should be considered an innovation introduced by the creators of the classic one.76 Their placement at the end of each unit might indicate a deliberate editorial activity, aimed at adding a pious nuance to this originally non-religious piece.77 The development of the Instructions of Shuruppak with time was therefore not restricted to gradual addition of wisdom materials. Rather, conscious redactors carefully molded the piece in accordance with their Zeitgeist, introducing new components such as an antediluvian setting, a royal context and a clearer expression of wisdom’s religious aspect.

74.  The exact meaning of the Sumerian phrase “take words into the mouth” is uncertain. Judging by the current context, it may perhaps mean “cast doubt at, argue with” etc. See Alster, Wisdom of Ancient Sumer, 171. 75.  Ibid., 98:265–70. 76.  Sallaberger, “Updating Primeval Wisdom,” 22, adds another consideration that marks this instruction as a later addition: the Early Dynastic admonitions are usually formulated as negative imperatives, while the current proverbial unit is a positive assertion. 77.  It goes without saying that no anachronism is meant by the term “non-religious.” The Sumerians, like other peoples of the ancient Near East, never knew a world without gods. However, some types of literature, especially wisdom, tend to focus on human life and to show little interest in religious themes, perhaps due to their Sitz im Leben or to other factors.

Chapter 16

W M

K

I

A

N

W

: W

A

Amitai Baruchi-Unna and Mordechai Cogan

Solomon, son of David, stands out from all the rest of the forty-two kings who reigned over Judah and Israel in many ways, the most notable—he was the only one described as being a “wise person” (1 Kgs 2:9), endowed with a “wise and discerning mind” (3:12), David’s “wise son” (5:21 [ET: 5:7]). In his survey of Solomon’s reign, the Deuteronomistic author of the book of Kings uses the root ‫חכ״ם‬, “wise,” 20 times, all but one with reference to Solomon; and after that, nowhere else in the book. The origin of this tradition concerning wise Solomon cannot be dated, but from the headline to the collection of proverbs Prov 25–29 in 25:1, “These are other proverbs of Solomon that the officials of King Hezekiah of Judah copied” (Prov 25:1),1 it appears that Solomonic lore was being nurtured and collected towards the end of the eighth century BCE. This coincides with the age of the expansion of the Assyrian Empire to the southern Levant during which the kingdoms of Israel and Judah came under the yoke of Assyria. Now Assyrian royal inscriptions describe Assyria’s kings as exhibiting various faces of wisdom. In the following study, the 1.  The verb ‫העתיקו‬, universally rendered “copied,” misconstrues the root ‫עת״ק‬, which describes movement from place to place; cf. Gen 12:8; 26:22; Job 9:5; 32:15. The root meaning led H. L. Ginsberg to suggest that Prov 25:1 refers to a collection of Solomonic proverbs imported from northern Israel (this on the basis of linguistic signs in Proverbs); see H. Louis Ginsberg, The Israelian Heritage of Judaism (New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of New York, 1982), 37; see, too, Chaim Cohen, “ ‘False Friends’: Regular Meanings of Words in Modern Hebrew which Originated Erroneously,” in Sha’arei Lashon… Presented to Moshe Bar-Asher, ed. A. Maman, S. E. Fassberg and Y. Breuer (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2020), vol. 1, 39–41 (Hebrew). In this case, “transferred” is a more felicitous translation.

B

-U

C

Wise Kings in Israel and Assyria

231

contemporary Israelite and Assyrian “wise king” traditions are examined in order to expose the characteristic features of each. It also considers the possibility that the image of Assyria’s wise kings influenced the display of Solomon as the ultimate wise king. This study is offered to our jubilarian in acknowledgment of her long and successful academic career, with the hope that she will continue to contribute wise insights into the workings of wisdom literature. Assyria’s Wise Kings Among the traits ascribed to the Assyrian kings and included at their behest in the royal inscriptions, that of being a “wise king” is employed for over six centuries, at first in just a scattering of contexts and only in introducing the king; later this quality expanded into a full-blown motif in which wisdom’s divine source and its effect on the king are underscored. For it was with godly wisdom that Assyrian kings fulfilled their civic duties—that of raising grand structures and manufacturing precious objects for man and god. The earliest instance of wise construction projects is recorded for Tiglath-pileser I (1115–1076 BCE).2 Several centuries later, Adad-nerari II (912–891 BCE) declared that the “great gods…filled my lordly body with wisdom (tašīmtu).”3 Shortly thereafter, his grandson, Ashurnasirpal II (884–859 BCE), expanded this self-adulation: “I (am) Ashurnasirpal, sage, expert, intelligent one, open to counsel (and) wisdom (eršu mudû ḫāsisu pēt uzni nēmeqi) which Ea, the king of the Apsû (subterranean water), destined for me…”4 Boasting of this sort declined in the inscriptions of his son, Shalmaneser III (859–824 BCE),5 and is not attested again in the extant corpus until the mid-eighth century. The motif of the wise Assyrian king made its reappearance under Tiglath-pileser III (745–727 BCE), who built a cedar palace in Calah by virtue of a divine grant of “keen understanding (and) broad knowledge (uzni nikilti ḫasīsi palkê).”6 In order to accomplish this work, he enlisted 2.  A. Kirk Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC I (1114–859 BC), RIMA 2 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991), 45, ll. 77–78; 49, ll. 7’–8’. 3.  Ibid., 147, ll. 6–7. 4.  Ibid., 225, l. 23. 5.  A. Kirk Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC II (858– 745BC), RIMA 3 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996), 74, l. 1; 136, ll. 6–7. 6.  Hayim Tadmor and Shigeo Yamada, The Royal Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III (744–727 BC) and Shalmaneser V (726–722 BC), Kings of Assyria, RINAP 1 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 123, no. 47, ll. rev. 17’–18’.

232

Human Interaction with the Natural World

the best artisans: “I cleverly made plans with (the help of) all the skilled craftsmen” (marê ummani ḫassuti nakliš ukaṣṣipma).7 Under Sargon II (721–705 BCE), the motif of the gift of wisdom reached full development. Sargon claimed to be the wise king, the master of all lore, the equal of the sage (i.e., Adapa), who grew to greatness in intelligence and wisdom and who matured in understanding (šarru pēt ḫasīsi le’i ini kalama šunnat apkalli ša ina milki nimeqi irbuma ina tašimti išēḫ[u]).8

With “broad wisdom” (mērešiya palkî) and “abundant discernment” (malû niklati) and skill, Sargon personally participated in the planning and execution of building his new capital, Dur Sharruken.9 Of note is that in conjunction with the report on the purchase of the land for the city, the scribes added a unit detailing the king’s concern for land usage: Skillful (itpēšu) king, who considered good things concerning the resettling of abandoned steppe-land, and who gave his attention to bring the wasteland under cultivation and to plant orchards; who conceived the idea of raising crops on steep mountains where no vegetation had ever grown; his heart led him to make furrows in waste areas where the plow was unknown in the days of former kings, and to have the work-song resound, and to open a grain-store(?) in fields that had no spring, and to bring water, like the swelling of the sea, abundant water, above and below.10

7.  Tadmor and Yamada, The Royal Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III, 23, no. 47, l. rev. 20’. 8.  Andreas Fuchs, Die Inschriften Sargons II. aus Khorsabad (Göttingen: Cuvillier Verlag, 1994), 37, l. 38; Grant Frame, The Royal Inscriptions of Sargon II, King of Assyria (721–705 BC), RINAP 2 (University Park: Eisenbrauns, 2020), 228, l. 38. 9.  Fuchs, Inschriften Sargons, 39, ll. 47–49; Frame, The Royal Inscriptions of Sargon II, 228, ll. 47–49. Letters sent to Sargon by state officials complement and confirm the self-image presented in the royal inscriptions; they paint a picture of a king, who “not only took active interest in the project but also directed it personally and followed the progress of works with impatient eagerness” (Simo Parpola, “The Construction of Dur-Sarrukin in the Assyrian Royal Correspondence,” in Khorsabad, le palais de Sargon II. roi d’Assyrie, ed A. Caubert [Paris: La Documentation Française, 1995], 47–77). 10.  Fuchs, Inschriften Sargons, 37, ll. 34–37; Frame, The Royal Inscriptions of Sargon II, 227–28, ll. 34–37.

B

-U

C

Wise Kings in Israel and Assyria

233

What a modern-sounding response to criticism of destroying the natural environment for the sake of urban development. Let it be known that Sargon was an environmentalist! In contrast to his predecessors, Sennacherib (705–681 BCE) was not praised for having wise qualities. It was only towards the end of his first decade—in 697 BCE—that his being a “skillful (itpēšu) shepherd” was added to the opening encomium in Sennacherib’s annal inscriptions.11 His forte was expertise in metal work: (But) as for me, Sennacherib, the foremost of all rulers, expert in every type of work (mudê šipri kalama), regarding large columns of copper (and) striding lion colossi, which none of the kings of the past (who came) before me had cast: with the ingenious mind that the prince, the god Ninshiku (Ea), had granted to me (and) taking counsel with myself, I intensively pondered how to perform this work. Then, with my (own) ideas and knowledge, I created a cast work of copper and expertly carried out its artful execution. By divine will, I created clay mold(s) of tree trunks and date palm(s), the tree of abundance, (of) twelve raging lions, as well as (of) twelve magnificent bull colossi with perfect features (and) twenty-two sphinxes that are coated in allure (and) charm (and) that have pride (and) exuberance heaped upon them, then I poured copper into it. Just like the cast work of (an object weighing only) a half shekel, I perfected their forms.12

No other king matched Sennacherib in these qualities. The next king, Esarhaddon, restored literary elements that had been set aside by his father and portrayed himself as a “capable, skilled, intelligent, learned” (le’ûm itpēšu ḫassu mudû) monarch, one who built and refurbished the shrines and the images of the gods in Assyria and Babylon.13 At the same time, it was not beyond the king to acknowledge that he engaged “skillful craftsmen” in this work.14 11.  A. Kirk Grayson and Jamie Novotny, The Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib, King of Assyria (704–681 BC), Part 1, RINAP 3/1 (Winona Lake; Eisenbrauns, 2012), 92, l. 4. 12.  Grayson and Novotny, The Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib, 140–41, ll. vi 80–vii 19. On the nature of the metal casting method introduced by Sennacherib, see the explication in Grayson and Novotny, ibid., 141, note to l. vii 18. To the references there, add: Stephanie Dalley, “Neo-Assyrian Textual Evidence for Bronze-Working Centres,” in Bronze-Working Centres of Western Asia c. 1000–539 BCE, ed. J. E. Curtis (London: British Museum, 1988), 97–110. 13.  Erle Leichty, The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, King of Assyria (680–669 BC), RINAP 4 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 14, ll. ii 18–22; 156, ll. 44–47. 14.  Ibid., 107–8, ll. 70–71, 81.

234

Human Interaction with the Natural World

But it was Ashurbanipal (669–627 BCE), of all the Sargonid kings, who comes closest to what we moderns would call a “wise king.” Ashurbanipal prided himself on his considerable learning, attained during his term in the House of Succession (bīt redûti), the institution where heirs apparent trained in the arts of kingship. In an inscription from his early days, Ashurbanipal elaborated on the curriculum he followed. In addition to the martial skills—horsemanship, archery, charioteering—the marks of a “mighty king,”15 he was tutored in scholarly pursuits: I learned [the c]raft of the sage Adapa, the secret lore of all of the scribal arts. I am able to recognize celestial and terrestrial [om]ens and can discuss (them) in an assembly of scholars. I am capable of arguing with expert diviners about (the series) “If the liver is a mirror image of the heavens.” I can resolve complex (mathematical) divisions and multiplications that do not have a(n easy) solution. I have read cunningly written text(s) in obscure Sumerian and Akkadian that are difficult to interpret. I have carefully examined inscriptions on stone from before the flood that are sealed, stopped up, and confused.16

Attention should be paid to the fact that Ashurbanipal’s accomplishment in the scribal arts is circumscribed to mantic wisdom, that is, the esoteric omen tradition.17 This training clearly left its mark, for it accompanied him throughout his reign, as evidenced in the mention of that schooling in the opening encomium of almost every edition of his annal inscriptions.18 Though his grandfather and his father had spent time in the

15.  Jamie Novotny, Selected Royal Inscriptions of Assurbanipal, L3, L4, LET, Prism I, Prism T, and Related Texts, SAACT X (Winona Lake: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2014), 96, ll. 23–28. 16.  Ibid., 96, ll. 17–22. 17.  In the “Verse Account of Nabonidus,” a propagandistic anti-Nabonidus composition, Babylon’s last king is depicted as claiming these same skills (cf. ANET, 314, col. v), for which he is roundly criticized for trespassing into the realm of esoteric knowledge that was reserved for scribal scholars. 18.  Jamie Novotny and Joshua Jeffers, The Royal Inscriptions of Ashurbanipal (668–631 BC), Aššur-etel-ilāni (630–627 BC), and Sîn-šarra-iškun (626–612 BC), Kings of Assyria, Part 1, RINAP 5/1 (University Park: Eisenbrauns, 2018), 58, ll. 7–8; 82, l. 7; 103, ll. 10–12; 193, ll. 24–31; 231, ll. 31–34. On Ashurbanipal’s education, see Silvie Zamazalová, “The Education of Neo-Assyrian Princes,” in The Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture, ed. Karen Radner and Eleanor Robson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 314–20.

B

-U

C

Wise Kings in Israel and Assyria

235

House of Succession,19 only Ashurbanipal took a profound interest in the scribal arts.20 Even before he took the throne, Ashurbanipal began to collect tablets in what seems to have been a very large private collection of scholarly works.21 He actively pursued the collection of the major works of Akkadian literature and science for his library. Correspondence between the king and his contacts in Babylon and Borsippa preserves details on the specific works the king desired, and the means by which the texts were located and copied and then sent to Nineveh.22 A number of library lists from the year following the revolt in Babylon (648 BCE) record what tablets had actually arrived in the capital.23 A large number of tablets in the library bear one of a variety of colophons that echoes Ashurbanipal’s claim to wisdom. For example: Palace of Ashurbanipal, [king of the world, king of Assyria], whom Nabû and Tashmetu [endowed with great wisdom], and who with a sharp eye acquired [the gems of literature]. While [none of] the kings who preceded me [had learned that craft], with the wisdom of Nabû I wrote on tablets [all extant] cuneiform writings, checked, and collated them, [and established them] in my palace for my reference and reading.24

19.  Novotny and Jeffers, The Royal Inscriptions of Ashurbanipal, 182, ll. i 16b–23. 20.  An exception to this statement is Esarhaddon’s claim concerning his crownprince days that he was “surpassing in intelligence, […] whose mind has learned…of all of the experts”; see Leichty, The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, 63, ll. 2–3; see, too, the reference to Esarhaddon’s “fine hand” (i.e., writing) in Simo Parpola, Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars, SAA X (Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1993), 188, No. 235, rev. 4–15. 21.  This collection of tablets is commonly referred as Ashurbanipal’s Library. Eleanor Robson has traced the modern origins of this term, which she considers a misnomer, and discusses the nature of Ashurbanipal’s collection in Ancient Knowledge Networks: A Social Geography of Cuneiform Scholarship in First-Millennium Assyria and Babylonia (London: UCL, 2019), 19–23. 22.  Grant Frame and A. R. George, “The Royal Libraries of Nineveh: New Evidence for King Ashurbanipal’s Tablet Collecting,” Iraq 67 (2005): 265–84. 23.  See Simo Parpola, “Assyrian Library Records,” JNES 42 (1983): 1–29. 24.  Alasdair Livingstone, Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea, SAA III (Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1989), 115, No. 47, rev. 7’–10’. For other variants on this wisdom theme in the colophons of library texts, see Hermann Hunger, Babylonische und assyrische Kolophone, AOAT 2 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker Kevelaer, 1968), 97–106.

236

Human Interaction with the Natural World

Summing up, it appears that all Assyrian kings in the late imperial period were imbued with wisdom, a gift granted them by Ea (Enki), the god of wisdom. As a rule, this quality found its expression in construction projects that led to the renewal and enhancement of the capital and its environs. Of these royal builders, Sennacherib stands out for his engineering abilities. Only Ashurbanipal took an interest in wisdom of a bookish sort. He claims to have mastered cuneiform; he could read inscriptions from all historical periods and was able to interpret omen texts better than the court haruspices. In these qualities, Ashurbanipal has no rival among the kings that had ruled the empire. Wise King Solomon Solomon’s wisdom was twofold: he wisely administered a vast kingdom that stretched “from the Euphrates to the land of the Philistines, even to the border of Egypt” (1 Kgs 5:1), and he composed an exceedingly large collection of wise teachings (5:12–13).25 The first disclosure of his sagacious abilities appears in the “Testament of David” (1 Kgs 2:1–9). In this Deuteronomistic apologetic,26 David instructs Solomon as to how he could ensure a successful reign: keeping the Teaching of Moses was primary. But this would not be enough; faithfulness to the Lord was to be accompanied by dealing cunningly with potential political enemies and in rewarding those who had supported David. After all, said David, you, Solomon, are a “wise man” and know what to do (2:9; cf. v. 6). Re-enforcing this innate wisdom was the divine endowment of “a wise and discerning heart” (3:12) that was announced to Solomon in a night vision during the king’s visit to Gibeon. And in order to prove the point, the author of Kings adduced the account of Solomon’s judgment in the civil case brought by two prostitutes regarding their disputed childcustody claim (3:15–28). The cleverness by which the king exposed the 25.  The opening lines of three biblical books identify their author as Solomon: Song of Songs, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes. The question of the trustworthiness of these ascriptions is not pertinent to the present discussion. Michael Fox’s comment regarding Proverbs is true of all three books: “Solomon was famed as an author of wisdom. The tradition of his wisdom was not an invention of the redactors of Proverbs; there would be no point in assigning a Wisdom text to a man not known for wisdom” (Proverbs 1–9, AB 18A [New York: Doubleday, 2000], 56). 26.  On the apologetic nature of 1 Kgs 1–2, legitimizing the accession of Solomon, see Mordechai Cogan, 1 Kings, AB 10 (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 164–68, 180–82; to the works cited there add: Andrew Knapp, Royal Apologetic in the Ancient Near East (Atlanta: SBL, 2015), 249–76.

B

-U

C

Wise Kings in Israel and Assyria

237

identity of the rightful mother was a sure sign “that the wisdom of God was in him to execute justice” (3:28).27 Solomon’s wisdom was also to be seen in his running of the state through an efficiently organized bureaucracy (4:1–5:8). This quality stood him in good stead when he negotiated the trade agreement with King Hiram of Tyre. Hiram saw Solomon as the “wise son” of David (5:21) and the treaty between their kingdoms was a fulfillment of the Lord’s promise to Solomon of “wisdom and understanding” (5:26; cf. 3:12). And Solomon was indeed wise. Of all his undertakings, the building of the Temple in Jerusalem was the capstone, and though it is never stated outright, for the author of Kings the Temple was the concrete expression of the centralization of worship at a single altar in the divinely chosen city that stands at the heart of Deuteronomic legislation (Deut 12).28 Solomon recognized the limitations of the local market to supply the materials needed for the construction of the Temple—especially the mighty and fragrant trees that were available only in Lebanon (5:20–25)29—and in order to acquire them, he secured “peace” with Hiram. Moreover, given that there was no native Israelite tradition of temple building, it comes as no surprise that the House of the Lord built in Jerusalem was architecturally a Phoenician structure that was accommodated to Israelite needs.30 So in addition to trees from Lebanon, expert Phoenician builders from Byblos came to work alongside those from Israel and Tyre on “preparing the timber and the stone to build the house” (5:32).31 27.  Further examples of direct appeal to the king as ultimate arbiter include the appeal of the widow from Tekoa (2 Sam 14:4–5), the Shunamite (2 Kgs 8:1–6), and the starving and bereaved woman during the siege of Samaria (2 Kgs 6:26–27). 28.  Nowhere is it stated that the Temple fulfilled the Deuteronomic legislation of a single cult site. Nor is there any indication that Solomon acted against the rural sanctuaries as required by the single altar law. 29.  In this Solomon was not alone. Over the millennia, the trees of Lebanon were sought after by many Near Eastern kings; see Manfred Weippert, “Libanon,” RlA 6:642–45. 30.  There is a wealth of literature on the Phoenician nature of Temple; see Victor A. Hurowitz, “YHWH’s Exalted House—Aspects of the Design and Symbolism of Solomon’s Temple,” in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel, ed. J. Day (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 63–110; to the works cited there add: Yosef Garfinkel and Madelene Mumcuoglu, “The Temple of Solomon in Iron Age Context,” Religions 10 (2019): 1–17. 31.  The singular reference to ‫גבלים‬, Gebalites, i.e., from the city of Byblos, was missed by many ancient and modern translators. If Byblos was an independent city at the time, Solomon may have had to negotiate a separate agreement with it, but little is known of the city’s history in the tenth century BCE.

238

Human Interaction with the Natural World

Once the physical building was completed, Phoenician vessels of a finer sort were fashioned: Now King Solomon invited and received Hiram from Tyre. He was the son of a widow of the tribe of Naphtali, whose father, a man of Tyre, had been an artisan in bronze; he was full of wisdom (‫)חכמה‬, intelligence, and knowledge in working bronze. He came to King Solomon, and did all his work. (1 Kgs 7:13–14)

It is of more than passing interest that this Tyrian craftsman is credited with “wisdom, intelligence, and knowledge,” the very words used when describing the qualities of Bezalel, the Israelite artisan who was responsible for the design and fabrication of the desert tabernacle (cf. Exod 31:3–5). The artistic talent ascribed to both Bezalel and Hiram is also to be found in the wisdom of weavers (Exod 28:3), and even seafarers (Ps 107:27); the common denominator of all these persons was their skill and competence. The wisdom found in the foreign expert who came to Jerusalem to fashion the bronze utensils for the Temple was not part of Solomon’s endowment.32 His expertise lay elsewhere. The second prong of Solomon’s wisdom was his wise teachings. In this, he surpassed the wise men of many peoples, in particular, “the Kedemites” (i.e., easterners) and “the Egyptians” (5:10), Israel’s close neighbors.33 The comparison made between Solomon and these wise foreigners suggests his acquaintance with their work. Indeed, that seems to be the case, if not by Solomon, then by the collectors of Israel’s wisdom teachings who included teachings of foreigners in the book of Proverbs. We can note, for example, the teachings of wise Arabs—the proverbs of Agur, son of Jakeh, (man of) Massa (Prov 30:1) and Lemuel, king of

32.  The biblical Chronicler made the connection of Hiram with Bezalel even stronger. He took Hiram’s mother to be “a Danite woman” (2 Chr 2:13), apparently an echo of the fact that Bezalel had been assisted by Oholiab of the tribe of Dan (cf. Exod 35:34). 33.  The Kedemites were the tent-dwelling nomads of the Syro-Arabian desert (Gen 29:1), who routinely appear as raiders along Israel’s borders (Judg 6:3, 33; Isa 11:4; Ezek 25:4). The translation in NRSV, “easterners,” is so general as to be of little geographical value; the same goes for “the eastern tribes” in NEB. Donald J. Wiseman (1 & 2 Kings, TOTC [Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1993], 95), and John Gray (I and II Kings, OTL, 3rd ed. [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1979], 146) are alone in thinking that Kedem “might signify the wisdom of Mesopotamia,” against the consistent use of the term in the biblical texts.

B

-U

C

Wise Kings in Israel and Assyria

239

Massa (Prov 31:1).34 Proverbs of Egyptian origin are nowhere specifically noted as such, but the universally acknowledged affinity of the unit Prov 22:17–23:11 to the Instruction of Amenemope surely points in that direction.35 Solomon’s oeuvre was prolific: He (Solomon) uttered three thousand proverbs, and his songs numbered a thousand and five. He would speak of trees, from the cedar that is in the Lebanon to the hyssop that grows in the wall;36 he would speak of animals, and birds, and reptiles, and fish. (5:12–13)

Many elements in this description are fabled. Most striking is the number of his utterances given in typological terms; “three thousand” and “a thousand and five” are meant to convey prodigiousness. In addition, there is no way to ascertain whether all of these proverbs and songs were of Solomonic origin, but if the adoption of the teaching Amenemope was typical, then there is reason to think that many other proverbs were also non-Israelite. But this is of no consequence, for wisdom was a universal trait, unrestrained by political boundaries. What set Solomon apart from the others was the vastness of his knowledge and his particular fondness for the lessons that nature taught.37 Keen observation of the natural world

34.  Massa is an Arab tribe from the vicinity of Tema in the northwestern Arabian Desert. It is listed among the “sons of Ishmael” in Gen 25:15; 1 Chr 1:30. 35.  Nili Shupak concludes: The author-editor of Proverbs “borrowed carefully and selectively from Amenemope, adapting the Egyptian instructions to monotheistic faith and Israelite setting” (“The Contribution of Egyptian Wisdom to the Study of Israelite Wisdom Literature,” in Was There a Wisdom Tradition? New Prospects in Israelite Wisdom Studies, ed. M. R. Sneed [Atlanta: SBL, 2015], 291–94, esp. 293). The Egyptian connection, specifically with reference to Solomon, is pointed up by Katharine J. Dell, The Solomonic Corpus of ‘Wisdom’ and Its Influence (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020), 77–91. 36.  Hebrew ‫אזוב‬, “hyssop,” identified as Origanum/Majorana syriacum, is a plentiful bush and a popular spice known as za’atar. However, it does not grow on walls. See Michael Zohary, Plants of the Bible (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 96–97. It was used in rituals (e.g., Lev 14:4–7, 49–51; Num 19:6, 18) and in marking the Israelite houses in Egypt (Exod 12:22)—a ceremony still practiced by the Samaritans. 37.  The idea that Solomon’s wisdom was related to the Listenwissenschaft common to the scribal school curriculums followed in many centers of the ancient Near East was proposed by Albrecht Alt, “Die Weisheit Salomons,” TLZ 36 (1951): 139–44 (ET = “Solomonic Wisdom,” in Studies in Ancient Israelite Wisdom,

240

Human Interaction with the Natural World

was rewarded with significant insights (cf. Job 12:7–8). For example, animal behavior offered a window on how human affairs might be beneficially conducted, whether it be from the ways of the lowly ant (Prov 6:6–7), or badgers, locusts and lizards (30:24–28).38 It was this knowledge that reached far and wide and prompted royal embassies from the world over to seek an audience with Israel’s king. Exemplifying this worldwide esteem is the tale of the queen of Sheba, who is said to have made the journey to Jerusalem from Sheba—reputedly in modern-day Yemen,39 a 1000-km trek!—in order to see with her own eyes the truth of the rumors concerning Solomon (1 Kgs 10:1–13).40 The text states that the queen was overwhelmed by the splendor of his palace (10:5), and he answered all the questions she put to him. At the same time, it is surprising that, in contrast to the details that are given concerning the king’s attendants and the richness of the palatial furnishings, nothing is said about how the queen set about “testing him with riddles” (Hebrew 10:1) (‫)חידות‬.41 Post-biblical writings fill in this ed. J. L. Crenshaw [New York: Ktav, 1976], 102–12). Though adopted by many commentators, it misses the point; see the critique of Alt’s view and a clarification of the nature of the Egyptian Onomastica by Michael V. Fox, “Egyptian Onomastica and Biblical Wisdom,” VT 36 (1986): 302–10. 38.  See the discussion of Tova Forti, “Animal Images in the Didactic Rhetoric of the Book of Proverbs,” Bib 77 (1996): 48–63. Late Rabbinic and Islamic lore expanded Solomon’s wisdom to include knowledge of the language of the animals with whom he conversed; see Louis Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1928), 6:287–88 n. 34. 39.  The location of Sheba in Yemen is based on the identification of the Sabaean kingdom, one of five in southwest Arabia, that developed starting at the end of the second millennium BCE and reached state-level by the eighth century; see Daniel T. Potts, “Asia, West. Arabian Peninsula,” in Encyclopaedia of Archaeology, ed. D. Pearsall (Cambridge: Elsevier/Academic, 2008), 833. 40.  The placement of the story of the Queen’s visit later in the account of Solomon’s reign was likely determined by the primacy the Deuteronomist gave to the account of the Temple. The Sheba story was woven within the unit that treated Solomon’s riches. It is framed by the statement of 420 talents of gold from Ophir (9:28), foreshadowing the large amount of “spices and gold” brought by the queen (10:2), and the total of 666 talents of gold, the yearly tally of the precious metal that Solomon received (10:14). 41.  Later tradition took up the slack; cf. e.g., the post-Talmudic Midrash Mishle, on which see Dina Stein, “The Queen of Sheba versus Solomon—Riddles and Commentary in Midrash Mishle I,” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Folklore 15 (1993): 7–35. Almost all modern English translations render ‫ לנסתו בחידות‬as “to test him with hard/subtle/difficult questions” (NRSV, NEB, NJPS, NAB, NJB), rather than “riddle”

B

-U

C

Wise Kings in Israel and Assyria

241

blank with stories of a contest of wits that took place between the two monarchs.42 The state visit closed with the customary gift-giving before the queen departed.43 The Separate Trajectories of Assyria and Israel The preceding review of the historical texts of Assyria and Israel clearly shows that in both corpora the topos of a wise king, gifted by the gods with great understanding, was known. But beyond this elementary similitude, they part company to follow separate trajectories. In Assyria, all late Neo-Assyrian kings made claim to being wise; in Judah, there was only one king described as wise. This difference is more than just a matter of numbers, of “all” versus “one.” The wisdom of the Assyrian kings was put on public display in monumental constructions—palaces, temples, walls and gates, aqueducts, cityscapes—all of which were built with great effort; in addition to their utility for crown and citizenry alike, these projects sought to strike awe and compliance among all subjects of the empire. Skilled craftsmen were mobilized to execute these projects, and in one instance, Sennacherib claims to have personally devised plans for metal works previously unheard-of. The mastery of Assyria’s kings coerced the natural world—rivers, mountains, forests—to yield to the needs and wants of an ever-expanding empire. The single exception to these depictions of the wise deeds of royalty was Ashurbanipal, who, of all the Sargonid monarchs, claimed to have excelled in cuneiform learning to the point of being able to compete with the experts.

as in all its other occurrences (cf. Num 12:8; Judg 14:12–16; Prov 1:6). There is no reason to depart from “riddles” in the current instance, which was the translation as early as LXX and Vg. Etymologically, ‫ חידה‬derives from the verb ‫חו״ד‬, and is cognate to Akkadian ḫiādu-ḫâdu, “to make an enigmatic utterance”; see Moshe Held, “Marginal Notes to the Biblical Lexicon,” in Biblical and Related Studies Presented to Samuel Iwry, ed. A. Kort and S. Morschauser (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 93–96. 42.  For the Jewish and Islamic traditions concerning the queen, see Lou H. Silberman, “The Queen of Sheba in Judaic Tradition,” in Solomon and Sheba, ed. J. B. Pritchard (London: Phaidon, 1974), 65–84; Jacob Lassner, Demonizing the Queen of Sheba (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993). 43.  Hellenistic writers, likely influenced by the story of the queen of Sheba’s questioning Solomon, augmented that tradition and told of Hiram of Tyre paying a large fine to Solomon after he lost a competition of riddle-solving with the Israelite king; see Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.113–15, 120.

242

Human Interaction with the Natural World

The wisdom of Israel’s Solomon was wholly different. Unlike the kings of Assyria, Solomon’s interests were far from the technological sphere. Accordingly, when he set about to build the Temple, Solomon contracted Phoenician laborers to do the job, and “wise” Hiram of Tyre came to Jerusalem to fashion all the bronze work in the Lord’s house. What set Solomon apart from other kings was his wise judicial decisions and prudent management of state affairs, and above all, his literary creativity in which flora and fauna were central. These contrasting Assyrian and Israelite perspectives gain further clarity when the nature of the texts in which they appear are examined. The two textual corpora were born of dissimilar raisons d’être, with the filiation of the Assyrian texts easier to ascertain than those of Judah. The Assyrian texts are, for the most part, royal inscriptions, contemporaneous with their subjects; they are the literary output of royal scribes in the employ of the king, whose job description included the preparation of inscriptions that lauded the military and civic accomplishments of their monarch, a “self-proclamatory image of the Assyrian king as sole supreme hero.”44 Though mostly fashioned as the ippisima verba of the king, the royal inscriptions were quotations of the king’s words only in as far as they reflected the desire of the king to be perceived in a particular manner, with the scribes being the true authors of the texts.45 There is evidence that drafts of the texts were read out to the king, seeking his approval prior to their display and distribution.46 This compositional process goes a long way in explaining the variety in the use of the “wise king” motif, with the differing emphases likely reflective of the variety in royal personalities. For example, it would not be far from wrong to say that Sennacherib saw himself as a master engineer, capable of moving mountains, while Ashurbanipal preferred to show off his wise qualities in scholarly discussions with haruspices and astrologers.

44.  Hayim Tadmor, “Propaganda, Literature, Historiography: Cracking the Code of the Assyrian Royal Inscriptions,” in Assyria 1995, ed. S. Parpola and R. M. Whiting (Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1997), 325–38 (327). 45.  Eckhart Frahm, “The Neo-Assyrian Royal Inscriptions as Text: History, Ideology, and Intertextuality,” in Writing Neo-Assyrian History: Sources, Problems, and Approaches, ed. G. B. Lanfranchi, R. Matilla, and R. Rollinger, SAAS XIX (Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2019), 142–43. 46.  See M. Cogan, “A Plaidoyer on behalf of the Royal Scribes,” in Ah Assyria…: Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor, ScrHier 33 (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1991), 121–28.

B

-U

C

Wise Kings in Israel and Assyria

243

In contrast to the Assyrian texts, the biblical texts are multi-layered, having been composed and re-edited over the ages, and none of those that present Solomon as the “wisest of all people” can be taken as contemporaneous with the king they describe. The picture of wise Solomon is set out in the book of Kings, a work of a Deuteronomic author-editor, who likely created his work to support the Josianic reform in the last quarter of the seventh century BCE. This Deuteronomist treated Solomon’s reign extensively, more than he did the reigns of all the other kings of Israel and Judah. This was surely related to Solomon’s being credited with building the Temple, the keystone of the author’s Weltanschauung. In addition, the author interspersed a large number of references to his wisdom among the reports of Solomon’s other works, notably 1 Kgs 3:16–27; 5:9–14, 21 (cf. v. 26); 10:1–13. Some of these accolades appear to be preDeuteronomistic, as inferable from their lacking signs of Deuteronomistic language or style; for example, the folktale of Solomon’s judgment in the custody case brought by the two prostitutes (1 Kgs 3:16–27).47 But in all instances, the Deuteronomist glossed the received traditions with the mark of wisdom before their insertion into Kings (cf., e.g., 1 Kgs 3:28).48 The question, now, is how did the Deuteronomist come by these reports and what was his interest in incorporating them into his work? It is hard to pinpoint the source of such varied material, because our author was not inclined to refer to his sources. He does, however, refer to The Book of the Deeds of Solomon in his bibliographic-like citation at the close of the survey of Solomon’s reign: “Now the rest of the deeds of Solomon and all that he did, as well as his wisdom, are they not written in the Book of the Deeds of Solomon?” (1 Kgs 11:41). Information on the date and contents of this book is lacking, but the mention of “wisdom” has led to the suggestion that it “originated among the scribes and wise men who were closely connected in one way or another with the royal court.”49 Support for this idea can be found in the tradition that Solomonic proverbs were collected

47.  There is unanimity as to the folkloristic nature of this tale. Wiseman is alone in suggesting that the story is a written record of a legal decision given by Solomon, and compares it to examples from Mesopotamian practice (Wiseman, 1 & 2 Kings, 87). 48.  Solomon’s judicial acuity, his “wise and discerning mind” (1 Kgs 3:9, 12), reflects the Deuteronomic conception of the intellectual qualities needed by “judges in order to judge justly” (Deut 1:14–16; 16:18–19); see, at length, Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972), 244–60. 49.  Jacob Liver, “The Book of the Acts of Solomon,” Bib 48 (1967): 75–101 (86).

244

Human Interaction with the Natural World

by “Hezekiah’s officials” (Prov 25:1). And if this statement can be trusted, then it would seem that by the end of the eighth century BCE, the idea of Solomon being the wisest king had already taken root in Judah, prior to the Josianic Deuteronomist’s inflated interest in wise King Solomon.50 Furthermore, the story of the visit of the queen of Sheba also points to the same time-frame. It is only in the second-half of the eighth century that Arab queens make their first appearance in historical sources, in particular, in the annals of the kings of Assyria.51 These queens are reported to have alternatively paid tribute or rebelled against their Assyrian overlord. Thus, given the prominence of female monarchs among the Arabs at this point in time, it seems reasonable to think that contemporaneous wisdom circles in Judah, in their efforts to enhance the fame of wise Solomon, circulated the tale of the queen of Sheba. It was as if to say: an Arab queen had already visited Jerusalem centuries ago during the reign of the famous and wise Solomon. Finally, as to whether the image of Assyria’s wise kings influenced the display of Solomon as the ultimate wise king, the emergence of the theme in Israel in the centuries prior to the submission of Israel and Judah to Assyria does not warrant suggesting influence of this kind. There is nothing Assyrian in how the Deuteronomist or his predecessors

50.  Even R. B. Y. Scott, who held that the “portrait of Solomon as the wisest of men and author of proverbs of encyclopaedic wisdom is late and largely imaginary,” credited Prov 25:1 as being evidence for the existence of tales of Solomon’s wisdom in the scribal school at the time of Hezekiah (Scott, “Solomon and the Beginnings of Wisdom in Israel,” in Wisdom in Israel and the Ancient Near East, ed. M. Noth and D. Winton Thomas, VTSup 3 [Leiden: Brill, 1953], 262–79 [272, 279]). 51.  Beginning in the reign of Tiglath-pileser III (745–727 BCE), we learn of Zabibê, “queen of the Arabs,” who rendered tribute to Tiglath-pileser in 740 BCE (Tadmor and Yamada, The Royal Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III, 87, no. 35, iii 19); Zabibê was likely queen of the nomadic Qedarites that traded in the north Syrian desert. Later in the same decade, Samsi, “queen of the Arabs,” who had taken an oath of allegiance to Assyria, joined other south Syrian kingdoms in rebellion against Tiglath-pileser in 734. Samsi paid dearly for her actions; following the loss of people and property, she submitted again, bringing the trade routes in Transjordan under Assyrian supervision (Tadmor and Yamada, ibid., 59, no. 20, l.18’; 106, no. 42, ll. 19’b–27’a). Samsi maintained her loyalty over the next two decades, as shown by her tribute payments to Sargon (Frame, The Royal Inscriptions of Sargon II, 64, No. 1, l. 123; 141, No. 7, l. 27). The inscriptions of Esarhaddon tell of another Arab queen, Te’elḫunu, who also served as a “kumirtu-priestess,” as being imprisoned by Sennacherib, appointing Tabua to rule in her stead (Leichty, The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, 19, No. 1, iv 1–5).

B

-U

C

Wise Kings in Israel and Assyria

245

presented Solomon.52 Though elements of the Wise Solomon tradition were concocted in the late eighth century BCE, they appear to have been, like all the other tales concerning Solomon, an inner-Israelite development within Israel’s wisdom circle.

52.  Thus, Römer’s claim that “the representation of Solomon as the wise king… may also more specifically be related to the representations of several Neo-Assyrian suzerains, such as Sennacherib, Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal” (Thomas Römer, The So-Called Deuteronomistic History [London: T&T Clark, 2007], 99) is unsubstantiated.

Chapter 17

D T A

S

G

:

G H

D B

C

*

Ada Taggar-Cohen

The majority of Hittite rituals use domesticated animals for sacrifice, although hunted game is also used sporadically. In both cases, the sacrifice is regarded as a present to the gods and the placing of the meat on the altar-table is how the deity is offered its meal. The serving of such a meal originated in the concept of reciprocity between humans and the gods. Humans offered animals to the gods in exchange for protection against suffering and death. This paper will survey the scholarly studies on this topic through an investigation of the relationship between the ritual hunt scenes depicted in Hittite iconography, their possible mythological background and their function as part of royal ideology of sacrifice. It will then ask the inevitable question of the implications for the terminating of sacrificed game in the Hebrew Bible. Introduction The Hittite kingdom appeared on the map of scholarship of the ancient Near East with the discovery of the ruins of its capital Ḫattuša in central Anatolia at the beginning of the twentieth century. Archaeological excavations of this huge city are still being conducted to this day, revealing ancient layers of the city since the early second millennium BCE. Much of the information on the Hittites and their cultic world comes from *  It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to join an endeavor to honor Professor Tova Forti, a colleague and friend since the days we were both in the offices of the basement of Cukier, Goldstein-Goren Building at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, and the long years since then, meeting at SBL conferences in Europe and the United States, and in Israel.

T

-C

Divine Gift

247

two kinds of archaeological findings: texts written mainly in the Hittite language (but also in other Anatolian languages, and in Akkadian), and from artefacts with pictorial depictions illustrating their cultic activities.1 The majority of Hittite texts deal with activities in the cult ceremonies and describe in detail ritual activities and behavior. These rituals combine cult traditions of at least three other religious cultures that existed in Anatolia during the period of the establishment of the kingdom (1650) up to its disappearance (1180). One of these pre-Hittite cultures that spread over north and central Anatolia was that of the Ḫattians, of which the Hittites adopted large parts, including their royal ideology. Another source of cultic traditions came from the region of Kizzuwatna,2 which contributed Hittite-Luwian rituals; and, dating from the late fourteenth century, strong Hurrian cultic traditions were also woven into the Hittite cult.3 Thus, the mixture of traditions generated different cultic practices as well as different uses of animal sacrificial traditions. Billie Jean Collins’s comprehensive study of Hittite references to animals concludes that there was a clear division of animals into wild and domestic, in which wild animals are not under human control; moreover, she divides the animals according to their habitat: wild animals in fields and forests, earthly animals (i.e., insects), aquatic animals (i.e., fish, frogs, snakes), and then domesticated animals such as cattle and sheep.4 At the same time there are sub-categories in the use of animals for sacrifice. Basically, wild or game animals were not an acceptable sacrifice—although the animals killed during the hunt were brought before the deities. But the regular sacrifices consisted of domesticated animals such as cattle and sheep, and sometimes deer. As can be seen in iconographic representations, the animals led to be sacrificed rarely included 1.  A general and exhaustive description of the Hittite world and history has been published by Trevor Bryce, Life and Society in the Hittite World (Oxford; Oxford University Press, 2002); idem, The Kingdom of the Hittites (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), and see also Billie Jean Collins, The Hittites and their World, Archaeology and Biblical Studies 7 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007). 2.  Jared Miller, Studies in the Origins, Development and Interpretation of the Kizzuwatna Rituals, StBoT 46 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2004). 3.  For a full description of the religious cults and traditions in Anatolia of the second and first millennia see Volkert Haas, Geschichte der hethitischen Religion, HdO 15 (Leiden, Brill, 1994); Maciej Popko, Religions of Asia Minor, trans. Iwona Zych (Warsaw: Academic Publications Dialog, 1995); Piotr Taracha, Religions of Second Millennium Anatolia, Dresdner Beiträge zur Hethitologie 27 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2009). 4.  Billie Jean Collins, “Animals in Hittite Literature,” in A History of the Animal World in the Ancient Near East, ed. B. J. Collins (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 237–50 (238).

248

Human Interaction with the Natural World

fallow deer, but mostly featured bulls, rams and goats, such as on the sixteenth-century vases from the Inandik and Hüseyindede sites (Fig. 1–2), as well as the fourteenth-century scenes on the gate at Alaça Höyük.5

Fig. 17.1. Hüseyindede vase. Archaeological Museum Çorum. Wikimedia Commons. The two knives/swords. CC BY-SA 3.0, https://www.wikiwand. com/en/Hüseyindede_vases

Fig. 17.2. The İnandıktepe vase, third register—the slaughter. Photo by Carole Raddato from Frankfurt, Germany. Museum of Anatolian Civilizations, Ankara. Wikimedia Commons. CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia. org/w/index.php?curid=65039099 5.  For Alaça Höyük, see the discussion below with Piotr Taracha, “The Sculptures of Alacahöyük: A Key to Religious Symbolism in Hittite Representational Art,” NEA 75 (2012): 108–14.

T

-C

Divine Gift

249

I The Hittites spoke of a sacrifice using the verb šipant- standing for “to pour a libation/to make an offering.”6 This verb is always directed at the deity. Usually, the deity’s statue or the hearth are the receivers of the poured libations. However, this word also covers the entire idea of sacrifices as a gift, a presentation from the offerer to the deity(ies). It is a personal relationship between the two, since the offerer expects something in return from the deity. The sacrifice of an animal is prescribed through a detailed process of actions, consisting of its consecration, its slaughtering and preparing it for the consumption by the deities and human participants.7 Sacrifice of animals, which was always combined with offerings of different kinds of breads, was an entire meal for the deities. The meal is understood to sustain the gods who were related to the land, its owners—in this case of the land of Hatti. The gods had to be treated with care so that they would continue to reside in the land and give it their benevolence. Muršili II’s prayer to the gods in the dire times of the pandemic that caused the death of a large portion of the population, clearly points to this understanding: I, Mursili, [your priest, your servant,] hereby [plead my case. Hear] me O gods, my lords! [Send away] the worry from my heart, [take away the anguish from my soul!] Let the plague [be removed] from Hatti, and send it to the enemy lands. […]. But if the gods, my lords, [do not remove] the plague [from Hatti], the makers of offering bread and the libation pourers will keep on dying. And if they too die, [the offering bread] and the libation will be cut off from the gods, my lords. Then you, O gods, [my lords], will proceed to hold the sin against me, saying: “Why [don’t you give us] offering bread and libation?” May the gods, my lords, again have pity on Hatti, and send the plague away.8 6.  See CHD Š: 384ff. for šipant- / išpant-. In addition, they would indicate the killing of the animal kuen- (HED, K: 206–12), or the slaughter of the animal huek(HED, H: 327–330). This is in comparison with the Hebrew Bible terms for sacrifice ‫מנחה‬, “gift/present that is placed,” ‫קרבן‬, “sacrifice/what is brought close to the god.” 7.  See recently Alice Mouton, “Animal Sacrifice in Hittite Anatolia,” in Animal Sacrifice in the Ancient Greek World, ed. S. Hitch and I. Rutherford (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017), 241. Also see Peter E. W. Popkin, “Hittite Animal Sacrifice: Integrating Zooarchaeology and Textual Analysis,” in Bones, Behaviour and Belief: The Zooarchaeological Evidence as a source for Ritual Practice in Ancient Greece and Beyond, ed. G. Ekroth and J. Wallensten, Acta Instituti Atheniensis Regni Sueciae in 4, 55 (Stockholm: SIA, 2013), 101–14, to which I will return later. 8.  Translation by Itamar Singer, Hittite Prayers, ed. H. A. Hoffner Jr., WAW 11 (Atlanta: SBL, 2002), 57 (§3’); compare E. Reiken et al., ed., hethiter.net/: CTH 378.3 (TX 2015-03–11, TRde 2017–10–18), §5’.

250

Human Interaction with the Natural World

It is apparent from the text that the gods expected the sacrifices, namely the bread and the išpantuzzi, that is the pouring of libations. It is assumed that libation refers to liquid poured, and in essence to alcoholic beverages such as beer and wine. But we also know that the Hittites poured the blood from sacrificed animals into bowls or vases, and then used it during the ritual. Beckman suggests that the blood, representing life and vigor, “came to stand pars pro toto for the sacrifice itself .”9 As such, the animal sacrifices offered to the gods were a direct gift from a person to save that person’s own life. Spilling the blood on the ground, allowing it to be absorbed into the earth, gave the blood back to the deities. The blood collected from slaughtered animals was thus given as food to the deities, both higher and chthonic ones.10 The Hittite practice of sacrifice included the choice of animal, its slaughtering and the placing of the meat in front of the gods.11 I am tempted to think that animal slaughter was not done daily in all temples, but bread was certainly placed daily before the gods, as is indicated by the terminology of “the daily bread” in the instructions to temple personnel (CTH 264 §2: 1412). Apart from daily activities, sacrificial ceremonies were conducted in the context of state and local festivals in which not only the royal house was involved, but other state officials also took part; the festivals were celebrated at specific times of the year and certainly included animal sacrifices. As will be seen below, there is a correlation between the textual instructions of the ritual procedure of sacrifice and some of the archaeological remains.13 9.  Gary Beckman, “Blood in Hittite Ritual,” JCS 63 (2011): 95–102 (99). 10.  Beckman, “Blood in Hittite Ritual,” 100, indicates that the direction of the cut on the throat of the animal determined the direction of the flow of the blood—up or down. He also gives an example (with op. cit., n. 49) KUB 10.63 i 21–28: “Then he allows the blood to collect in a beaker and sets it on the ground before the marapši Storm-god. Then the ‘seer’ cuts off a little of the raw liver and heart and takes a little of the blood and sets it (all) down in the pit. Then he stops up the pit with a loaf of ordinary bread while the (carcass of) the sheep is carried away. The temple employees butcher it.” 11.  See also Michele Cammarosano, Hittite Local Cults (Atlanta: SBL, 2018), 41–43, on the terminology of offering and slaughter in sacrifice. 12.  Ada Taggar-Cohen, Hittite Priesthood, Texte der Hethiter 26 (Heidelberg: Winter, 2006), 40, 70. 13.  The issue of only domesticated animal bones found in the area around temples is correct for the Levant region, such as Ugarit and Israel (Jerusalem) and Geshur. See Rami Arav and Richard A. Freund, Bethsaida: A City by the North Shore of the Sea of Galilee, Volume 3: Bethsaida Excavation Project Reports and Contextual Studies (Kirksville: Truman State University Press, 2004), 26ff.; Abra Spiciarich, “Birds in

T

-C

Divine Gift

251

II Most of the Hittite textual material related to sacrifice are instructions to cult personnel who performed the rituals, and to the cult’s authorities, on how the rituals should be conducted, and whether they were state cultic activities (which is the majority of our textual evidence). These local cult rituals ranged from the festival of the month (indicating the beginning of a month) to the seasonal festivals, the most important of which were the spring and fall festivals, and then festivals that were celebrated over a cycle of years.14 Also to be mentioned are individual sacrifices not in a festival context. Records of all the texts were created and kept by the state authorities to keep track of the correct procedures of the rituals. The conducting and holding of these cultic events were understood to be part of the divine law dictated by the deity itself.15 As such, they were considered to be the fulfilment of the desire of the gods as clearly indicated to the cult personnel in their loyalty instructions pledged under oath. Firstly, they had to perform the festivals and cult activities precisely on time according to the yearly calendar, and secondly, they had to be performed with all the food needed to be presented to the gods: CTH 264 §4: 39–49 Fu[rthe]rmore: The festival of the month, the festival of the year, the festival of the stag, the f[al]l [fes]tival, the [fe]stival of the spring, {a list of other festivals}, or whatever festival (there is) up in Ḫattuša, if you do not celebrate them along with all cattle, sheep, bread, beer and with wine set up (for the gods), but (from) those (people) giving it (i.e. the offerings), you—Temple-Men—from them you will keep taking payment, you will cause them (i.e. the offerings) to fall short of the will of the gods.16

Transition: Bird Exploitation in the Southern Levant During the Late Bronze Age, Iron Age I, and Iron Age II,” BASOR 383 (2020): 61–78 (74). 14.  For a general description of the festivals see Trevor Bryce, Life and Society in the Hittite World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 187–210; Daniel Schwemer, “Quality Assurance Managers at Work: The Hittite Festival Tradition,” in Liturgie oder Literatur? Die Kultrituale der Hethiter im transkulturellen Vergleich. Akten eines Werkstattgesprächs an der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur Mainz, 2.–3. Dezember 2010, ed. Gerfrid G. W. Müller (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2016), 1–30. See also for special festivals in the text Instructions for Temple Personnel (CTH 264), Taggar-Cohen, Hittite Priesthood, 117–22. 15.  See Ada Taggar-Cohen, “Ritual as Divine Law: The Case of Hittite Royal Cultic Performance and its Biblical Correspondence,” Orient 55 (2020): 23–37, esp. 14–15. 16.  Taggar-Cohen, Hittite Priesthood, 43–44.

252

Human Interaction with the Natural World

The offerings to be presented to the deities are, with regard to animals, domesticated animals only, that is, cattle and sheep. The text clearly indicates that the instructions concern the cowherds and the shepherds as indicated in the special instructions for them in §17:25, “Furthermore: Those of you who [hav]e the plow oxen of the thresh[floor] (of a temple)”; §18:34, “Furthermore: You who are cowherds of the god and shepherds of the god.” The colophon to this text indicates that the laws, that is, the instructions, are for “farmers of the gods, the cowherds of the god, (and) the shepherds of the god.”17 Even more so, the Hittite iconography and archaeological evidence support this assessment. Hittite texts indicate literally, and in a very schematic way, the procedures to be followed when conducting a ritual, for example KUB 25.23 obv. i 26’–31’ (CTH 526): The next day the SANGA-priests celebrate in their house for (the mountain deity) Ḫaluwanna, a spring festival at the expense of their house. They consecrate one sheep. They put down meat raw (and) cooked. (There are) thirty loaves of bread (and) three vessels of beer of the house of the SANGApriest, (and) ten loaves of bread (and) one ḫuppar-vessel of beer on the altar, twenty loaves of bread, two vessels of beer (and) a ḫuppar of beer to provide for. They break thick bread. They fill the rhytons. They eat. They drink. They provide for the cups.18

The animal mentioned here is a sheep, and the fact that it was slaughtered becomes clear from the use of the meat by the priests, who also eat and drink as part of the celebration for the deity. The instructions in this text are addressed to the SANGA-priests. A different text describes the ritual as follows, KBo 22.180 12’–16’ (CTH 706): The SANGA-priest breaks one thin bread. On it, however, he places raw bre[ast] meat, liver, (and) heart cut (into pieces). Then, the breast he libates (= consecrates) with wine. He then puts it back in front of the goddess Ḫepat. He libates wine.

The study of an archaeological excavation in southern Anatolia described by Popkin19 brought to light an interesting correlation between the texts and the ritual process. Based on the findings of a buried sacrificed animal, Popkin was able to identify the following stages: the first step was selection of the animal (its gender, age and sometimes color were important); the 17.  Taggar-Cohen, Hittite Priesthood, 65–66, 83. 18.  Ibid., 194. 19.  See above, n. 9.

T

-C

Divine Gift

253

second step was sanctifying it; the third step would have been the digging of a pit in order to collect the animal’s blood; the fourth step was the actual slaughter; the fifth step was skinning the animal and cutting it into parts; the sixth and seventh steps were separating the meat from the bones, cutting it into pieces and cooking it, either boiled or roasted. The skin was probably taken to be used elsewhere, and the bones were disposed of by depositing them in the pit. The eighth and ninth steps consisted of placing the cooked meat on the altar, and other parts were eaten by the participant. Popkin’s study mentioned an almost complete sheep buried in a pit prepared for it after it had been slaughtered. The animal was identified as a male sheep, between 20–24 months old. Popkin pointed out the marks of the knife cuts on the bones. In several other texts the mention of a knife or knives used in sacrifices can be found, as for example in KUB 29.4 iv 31–41 (CTH 481) where two knives are mentioned as follows: And when on the evening of the second day a star appears, the ritual patron comes into the temple, and he bows to the deity. And they take the two knives which were made along with the new deity, and they dig an offering-pit before the table for the deity. Then they sacrifice one sheep to the deity for reconciliation, and they slaughter it down into the pit. The (ritual) of evocation from the wall, however, does not take place, but the small table is placed there. And they smear with blood the golden deity, the wall and all the paraphernalia of the new deity, and the new deity and the temple become sacred. The fat, however, they burn completely; no one eats it.20 (see Fig. 1, above p. 248)

The rituals described above are represented in Hittite art on walls and other artifacts. These festival scenes include illustrations of the animals brought for sacrifice. We indeed see cattle and sheep (bulls, rams, goats). On specific artifacts there are also scenes of deer, antelope and a stag. These animals represent the wild beasts, while they also symbolize specific deities. The bull is a symbol of the Storm-god, the stag is a symbol for the protective/tutelary deity, and a bird of prey is the symbol related to the deity of wild animals. These animals, including the stag, lion and leopard, and birds of prey including the eagle, were wild game animals of the hunt, which was an important part of royal prestige, and as such appeared on iconography. There was what can be called a “sacred hunt,” and the animals hunted were offered as a gift to the gods.21 20.  The translation follows Miller, Kizzuwatna Rituals, 297. 21.  Billie Jean Collins, “Animals in the Religions of Anatolia,” in A History of the Animal World in the Ancient Near East, 313–14 stresses the fact that animals in Anatolia “formed the core of the religious life of the Hittites […and] served as companions to the gods, forming part of the deity’s iconography and often defining

254

Human Interaction with the Natural World

Hunting scenes have different forms in Hittite iconography. One scene carved on the stones of the walls at the entrance to the city in Alaça Höyük shows animals being hit by the hunter’s arrows, as well as dogs attacking the lion. The question of the relationship between scenes of worship and acrobats as well as hunting scenes, caused Ünal, long ago, to suggest that the form of this sculpture represented the festival of the goddess Tetešḫapi, known from Hittite texts (CTH 738) to be a festival to the goddess of nature and fertility.22 On the decoration of a large vase from the Old Hittite period (sixteenth century BCE) found at Inandik-Tepe, the temple personnel and the ruler conducting the ceremony are seen on the second and third registers from the top, walking towards the temple while the two leading personnel each hold a knife, and in the next scene they are slaughtering a bull (Fig. 2, above p. 248) in front of the statue of the deity, which is symbolized by the statue of a bull.23 Other scenes show libation of the blood, wine or beer, which was an essential part of the ceremony. Another beautiful example is the silver stag rhyton from the Schimmel collection of the Metropolitan Museum. On the shoulder of the rhyton, a scene depicting the worshiping of two deities is engraved in the metal (Fig. 3). Starting from the tree under which a dead stag can be seen with a bow, a quiver and the hunting bag hanging on it, can be seen the temple where the hunters make offerings his power. Divining the outcome of future events or the significance of current ones depended on the observation of animal behavior and the reading of messages left by the gods on the entrails of sacrificed animals.” For a large hunting scene, see Kutlu Emre and Aykut Çınaroğlu, “A Group of Metal Hittite Vessels from KınıkKastamonu,” in Aspects of Art and Iconography: Anatolia and its Neighbors, Studies in Honor of Nimet Özgüç, ed. M. J. Mellink, E. Porada, and T. Özgüç (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1993), 675–703 (Fig. 23). 22.  See Ahmet Ünal, “The Textual Illustration of the ‘Jester Scene’ on the Sculptures of Alaca Höyük,” Anatolian Studies 44 (1994): 207–18 (209, 216); Franca Pecchioli Daddi, “Connections between KI.LAM and the Tetešḫapi Festival: The Expressions ḫalukan tarnanzi and ḫeun tarnanzi,” in Pax Hethitica: Studies on the Hittites and Their Neighbours in Honour of Itamar Singer, ed. Y. Cohen, A. Gilan, and J. L. Miller; StBoT 51 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2010), 261–70. 23.  For photos and drawings of the Inandik vase, as well as the vases from Hüseyindede, see Tayfun Yildirim, “New Scenes on the Second Relief Vase from Hüseyindede and their Interpretation in the Light of Hittite Representative Art,” in VI Congresso Internazionaledi Ittitologia Roma, 5–9 settembre 2005, ed. Alfonso Archi and Rita Francia (Rome: Instituto di studi sulle civilta dell’egeo e del vicino oriente, 2008), 837–46; Tahsin Özguc, Inandiktepe: eski Hitit çaginda önemli bir kült merkezi=An Important Cult Center in the Old Hittite Period, Türk Tarih Kurumu yayinlari 5/43 (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi, 1988).

T

-C

Divine Gift

255

to the deities for their support of the successful hunt.24 The hunted animal is complete, not served on the altar before the deity. The leader of the worshipers libates on the ground. It could be that he is libating the blood of the deer. As indicated by Collins, “[a]lthough no longer a necessity for survival, hunting maintained its sacred nature through ritualized celebrations and enactments. The prevalence of ritual officiants bearing titles like ‘bear-man,’ ‘lion-man,’ ‘wolf-man,’ ‘leopard-man,’ and ‘dog-man,’ further testify to the importance of hunting in the ritual life of the Hittites.”25

Fig. 17.3. The frieze from the silver stag vessel in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Reproduced from O. W. Muscarella, Ancient Art: The Norbert Schimmel Collection (Mainz, 1974), 126. Courtesy of The Metropolitan Museum of Art, photograph by Heather Johnson. Image © The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Image source: Art Resource, NY. Artifact #ART593127. Details: Vessel terminating in the forepart of a stag: frieze rollout. Central Anatolia, Hittite Empire, ca. fourteenth/thirteenth century BCE. Silver, gold inlay, 7 1/16 × 5 5/16 × 7 1/16 in., 0.7 lb. (18 × 13.5 × 18 cm, 0.3 kg). Gift of Norbert Schimmel Trust, 1989 (1989.281.10).

As indicated by Taracha regarding hunting scenes, they “should be considered rather a topos than a depiction of a real hunt.”26 Even if a hunt scene were placed in correlation to worship, as well as separately, it suggests symbolism in the realm of the gods. As already seen on the 24.  For a recent publication on the silver stag and the reading of the Anatolian Hieroglyphs, see Theo Van den Hout, “The Silver Stag Vessel: A Royal Gift,” Metropolitan Museum Journal 53 (2018): 115–28. 25.  Collins, “Animals in Hittite Literature,” 250. 26.  Piotr Taracha, “The Iconographic Program of the Sculptures of Alacahöyük,” JANER 11 (2011): 132–47 (139). As also noted by Stefano de Martino, “The Celebration of Hittite Festivals: Texts in Comparison with Archaeological Evidence,” in Liturgie oder Literatur? Die Kultrituale der Hethiter im transkulturellen Vergleich. Akten eines Werkstattgesprächs an der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur Mainz, 2.–3. Dezember 2010, ed. Gerfrid G. W. Müller (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2016), 91–103 (95), following M. Feldman, regarding the fact that the Alaça Höyük hunt reliefs are part of “koine” culture of the ancient Near East.

256

Human Interaction with the Natural World

Anitta inscription (CTH 1), hunted animals were brought before the gods.27 The question is where did the people consume the game animals, since no remains of wild animals have been found in the ashes at excavations of Hittite temples? One conclusion arising from this discussion is that the hunt may have played a part in the cult of the vital concept of the deities, and the relationship of the people to them. Mythological stories too had to do with descriptions of the gods in texts and in glyptic art. Even if an eagle was used in the ritual itself, or a live lion, leopard and so on, their place in the cult was different from domesticated animals. They were not used as substitutes nor as purifiers, but, as Collins suggests, they were “better suited to apotropaic uses or the hunt-related ritual theme.”28 III The loss of blood is the loss of life, and the death of the animal can be seen in two ways: either as a substitute for death in the human family, or as the food consumed by both the divine and humans. This interpretation places it in correlation with the understanding of blood in the Hebrew Bible (Gen 9:4; Lev 3:17; 7:26–27; 17:11, 12, 14; Deut 15:23 passim). For example, Deut 12:23–24: ‫רק חזק לבלתי אכל הדם כי הדם הוא הנפש ולא־תאכל הנפש עם הבשר‬ ‫לא תאכלנו על הארץ תשפכנו כמים‬ Only be sure that you do not eat the blood; for the blood is the life, and you shall not eat the life with the meat. Do not eat it; you shall pour it out on the ground like water. (NRSV)

Based on the fact that blood is manipulated in Hittite ritual texts and biblical cultic legal texts, Yitzhaq Feder brought to light similarities in the use of blood in the Hittite rituals of Kizzuwatna and the biblical texts of Leviticus.29 In general, the Hittites used blood for libation and they 27.  See Harry A. Hoffner Jr., “Proclamation of Anitta of Kušsar,” COS 1:184 §16 (lines 59–63). Hoffner, though, suggested that the animals were intended for an animal park (or a zoo). 28.  Collins, “Animals in the Religions of Anatolia,” 325. See also her indication that the rituals employed actors dressed in skins like these animals and termed “leopard-men,” “bear-men” “dog-men” etc. under the category of the “animals of the gods” (328–29). 29.  Yitzhaq Feder, “A Levantine Tradition: Kizzuwatnean Blood Rite and the Biblical Sin Offering,” in Pax Hethitica: Studies on the Hittites and their Neighbours in Honour of Itamar Singer, ed. Y. Cohen, A. Gilan, and J. L. Miller (Wiesbaden:

T

-C

Divine Gift

257

poured it on the ground or collected it in vases and then poured it first of all on the base of the altar, as required also in biblical law,30 but in other places, in the temple as well, or for purification by smearing it on parts of a new statue or other objects in a new temple.31 The same use of blood for purification can be found in biblical texts, such as smearing the tabernacle for consecration by Moses in Exodus 29.32 These ritual traditions of the Israelites and the Hittites look very similar as they are clearly indicated in a format addressing temple personnel. The texts do not describe rituals but rather prescribe them. These are instructions on how to implement the procedure of the ritual which, in both religions, is a tradition coming from divine origins: the gods transfer their will in the form of rules to the cult personnel who then act in accordance with that will.33 In the Hittite kingdom animals offered for sacrifice in festivals were part of the obligations of the people to the king, and we see how large numbers of animals were driven to different temples within the Hittite land.34 In the biblical text of Leviticus, the sacrificial cult is mentioned in detail and instructions to the priests are clearly against serving the god with game. In Leviticus 11 there is a precise list of the animals to be used (or not used). Especially interesting is the prohibition of the sacrifice of birds aside from doves and pigeons. Harrassowitz, 2010), 101–14, and idem, Blood Expiation in Hittite and Biblical Ritual: Origins, Context, and Meaning, WAWSS 2 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2011). 30.  As in Lev 4, the blood of the sacrifice is placed on parts of the Tent of Meeting, “and the rest of the blood of the bull he shall pour out at the base of the altar of burnt offering, which is at the entrance of the tent of meeting” (v. 7, NRSV). 31.  CTH 481. For a translation of the text, see Billie Jean Collins, “Establishing a New Temple for the Goddess of the Night,” COS 1:176–77. 32.  See also the actions of Moses in Exod 24:6: “Moses took half of the blood and put it in basins, and half of the blood he dashed against the altar.” The translation “basins” is for the Hebrew word ‫ אגנות‬that goes back to Akkadian word agannu, “large bowls,” see CAD A, 142. 33.  Taggar-Cohen, “Ritual as Divine Law,” 27: quoting CTH 382 obv.12–28 where Muwatalli II appeals to his god to show him the correct cultic law and he says that he will search in previous tablets, and ask the old man so that he “shall perform the law of the gods (ŠA DINGIR.MEŠ-ma iš-ḫi-u-ul) which I am rediscovering, and it shall be henceforth carried out.” The law of the gods is the cult in both cultures. 34.  A similar obligation was retracted concerning Kurunta of Tarḫuntašša by Ḫattušili III in CTH 106 §12. And note the number of cattle and sheep driven to the festival of Telipinu in CTH 638 (=KUB 51.1), which starts with indicating the ninth year (of the king probably), saying that 1000 sheep and 50 bovines should be driven to the city of Kašḫa, and from the city of Ankuwa the same number should be sent to the city of Ḫanḫana.

258

Human Interaction with the Natural World

In Hittite culture, as mentioned above, birds of prey were part of the hunt, as well as a symbol for the deity. For example, the Hittite eagle was a very important part of the mythological background of royal ideology, and for this reason was used in different rituals. But at the same time it was an iconographic symbol like on the famous orthostat at Alaça Höyük.35 In David Wright’s review of rituals in the Hebrew Bible, he compares the Hittite and biblical sacrifices from two aspects: firstly, the fact that the offerer gesticulates by hand that the animal for sacrifice is his, that it is “a gift” from him; and secondly, that the offerer comes into communication with the gods through approaching their presence in the temple. In texts from both cultures there are no details of the slaughter process, but it is evident that this act is not carried out by the offerer and therefore is not an important part for him.36 Wright’s analysis goes further to contrast sacrifice (of domesticated animals) and the hunt: Hunting is not undertaken with any special deference to god, but simply to obtain meat for the human diet, whereas sacrifice seeks to engage a supernatural force for one’s benefit. Sacrificial animals are slaughtered primarily to provide a meal for the god, not for humans. Lay people receive flesh from only one type of sacrifice, the well-being offering (cf. Leviticus 3:7), as a special dispensation. The flesh of purification and guilt offerings goes only to priests (Leviticus 4–5; 6:17–23). No human eats any of the burnt offering (Leviticus 1; 6:2–6). This restricted distribution of meat makes no sense if sacrifice is a way for humans to obtain food from domestic animals.37

While in Hittite religious practices and beliefs the animals of the hunt have much to do with their symbolism in mythological connections with specific deities, the Hebrew Bible rejects it in favor of the one and only god YHWH. To conclude, I would like to note that all festivals that include sacrifice of which humans share with their gods are joyful occasions. The biblical text says:

35.  For the place of the eagle in the ritual for the establishment of a palace, which is the foundation myth of Hittite royal house, see CTH 413, and see Collins, “Animals in Hittite Literature,” 245 on “Myth and tales of Animals.” 36.  David P. Wright, “The Study of Ritual in the Bible,” in The Hebrew Bible: New Insights and Scholarship, ed. Frederick E. Greenspahn (New York: New York University Press, 2008), 120–38 (125). 37.  Wright, “The Study of Ritual in the Bible,” 128.

T

-C

Divine Gift

259

‫והביאותים אל הר קדשי ושמחתים בבית תפילתי עולתיהם וזבחיהם לרצון על מזבחי‬ ‫כי ביתי בית תפלה יקרא לכל העמים‬ These I will bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer; their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples (Isa 56:7; see also Lev 23:40; Deut 27:7). (NRSV)

And compared with a Hittite text KUB 17.35 ii, 23–29: The rhytons they fill. 1 PA, 2 BÁN-measure of flour, 4 vessels of beer for provision. They eat. They drink. The cups they provide. The ḫazgarawomen bring fruit. On the deity they put a wreath, and on the priest, they put a wreath. They amuse the deity, and into a wrestling fight they step. The stone they throw. When it becomes evening, the goddess they pick up. The ḫazgara-women carry the deity into the temple; they put down the deity on the altar. Liver they put down in front of the deity. 1 loaf of bread (made of) a handful (of flour) they break. Beer they offer.38

38.  For the edition of the text, see Charles Carter, “Hittite Cult Inventories” (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1962), 141; and recently, Cammarosano, Hittite Local Cults, 172–73.

Chapter 18

G

V

: S A

N

H

P E

B *

Jennifer L. Andruska

The delicate, slender and dewy-eyed gazelle appears frequently in the iconography and literature of the ancient Near East. It is often depicted as vulnerable, a hunted creature fleeing for its very life. At other times, it stands strong and powerful, and is associated with the most powerful gods and goddesses of the ancient Near East. The present study will examine gazelles as symbols of both power and vulnerability in the Hebrew Bible and ancient Near East. It will look at the symbolism of gazelles in the literature and iconography of the ancient Near East, at the symbolic meanings of gazelles in the biblical material, at the empirical link between what is observed in the animal world and human life/behavior which is characteristic of animal symbolism and also found in biblical wisdom literature, and at gazelles as symbols of vulnerability and power. I will focus on their embodiment of power despite their vulnerability and what this might show about the interrelationship of these concepts within the created order. Gazelles in the Ancient Near East Animal symbolism may be described as “the representation of human or divine subjects and their conducts by the evocation of traits or activities of animals in general or certain animals in particular,” and as Hendrik Bosman notes, “Animals have symbolic meanings in many cultures throughout the * It is with pleasure that I dedicate these reflections to Tova Forti, a distinguished colleague and cherished friend, whom I have known since my earliest days in Cambridge.

A

Gazelles

261

ancient Near East.”1 They symbolized various traits, and even opposite traits, in the literature and iconography, as the same animal could evoke “different connotations in different contexts.”2 Gazelles appear throughout the literature and iconography of the ancient Near East,3 and as we will see, can evoke both power and vulnerability in various contexts. The ancient Egyptians hunted gazelles, but they also tamed them for religious and secular purposes.4 As Patrick Houlihan explains, “The ancient Egyptians were enamored with the graceful and dewy-eyed gazelle,” and the upper classes even kept them as exotic pets.5 Ancient Egyptian gods are often depicted with the heads of animals and the bodies of humans, and these animals may have “represented or even incarnated the Ba, the personality of the gods.”6 In Egypt, it was common for deities to appear in animal form, and the gazelle was associated with Anuket (Anukis), a southern Egyptian/Nubian goddess and patron deity of the Nile with a dual nature, both sweet and fierce.7 On a thirteenth/twelfthcentury BCE limestone shard from Deir el-Medina, Anuket appears and is worshipped in the form of a gazelle (see Fig. 1).8 1.  Hendrik Bosman, “Animal Symbolism: I. Ancient Near East and Hebrew Bible/Old Testament,” EBR 2:1–2. Bosman (2:1) notes that animal symbolism overlaps with animal similes, which compare animals to subjects/actions, and animal metaphors, which use “animal behaviour and names to describe something in terms of something else.” 2.  Ibid., 2:1–2. 3.  Othmar Keel, The Song of Songs: A Continental Commentary, trans. Frederick J. Gaiser (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 96; Ann C. Gunter, “Animals in Anatolian Art,” in A History of the Animal World in the Ancient Near East, ed. Billie Jean Collins, HdO 64 (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 79–96 (83, 93); and, in the same volume, Patrick F. Houlihan, “Animals in Egyptian Art and Hieroglyphs,” 97–144 (113, 121, 130); Margaret Cool Root, “Animals in the Art of Ancient Iran,” 169–209 (187); Annie Caubet, “Animals in Syro-Palestinian Art,” 211–34 (222). 4.  Douglas Brewer, “Hunting, Animal Husbandry and Diet in Ancient Egypt,” in Collins, ed., History of the Animal World, 427–56 (427–28, 453). 5.  Houlihan, “Egyptian Art,” 121; cf. Brewer, “Diet in Ancient Egypt,” 453. 6.  Bosman, “Animal Symbolism,” 2:2. 7.  Emily Teeter, “Animals in Egyptian Religion,” in Collins, ed., History of the Animal World, 335–60 (337); Keel, Songs, 92; Geraldine Pinch, Handbook of Egyptian Mythology (Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2002), 186–87; Pat Remler, Egyptian Mythology A to Z, 3rd ed. (New York: Chelsea House, 2010), 18. Remler (18) notes that while her name means “to embrace,” it “was said that her embrace could also become a chokehold.” 8.  Keel, Songs, 92, 93 Fig. 49. Figures 1–3 were originally published in Othmar Keel, Das Hohelied, Zürcher Bibelkommentare. Altes Testament (Zurich:

262

Human Interaction with the Natural World

Fig. 18.1. Shard depicting the Egyptian goddess Anukis/Anuket being worshipped as a gazelle (Deir el-Medina, Egypt, ca. thirteenth/twelfth century BCE). © Othmar Keel/Theologischer Verlag Zürich/Fortress Press.

Gazelles appear often in ancient Egyptian iconography and literature. On the cippus “Horus on the Crocodiles,” the youthful Horus stands on pacified crocodiles, holding the tales of lions, serpents, scorpions and a gazelle, all powerful animals and “symbols of wild realms, hence magically taming the forces of chaos.”9 In P. Chester Beatty I, a man is likened to a swift and agile gazelle, speeding to the woman as if chased by a hunter: If only you would come to (your) sister swiftly like a gazelle bounding over the desert, whose legs are shaky, whose body is weary, for fear has entered his body. A hunter, dog with him, pursues him, but they can’t even see his dust. He regards a resting place as a trap(?) and takes to the river as a road(?). (P. Chester Beatty I, Group B: No.40)10

Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 1986), and idem, The Song of Songs: A Continental Commentary, trans. Frederick J. Gaiser (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994). I am very grateful to Othmar Keel, Theologischer Verlag Zürich and Fortress Press for allowing me to reproduce the images here. 9.  Teeter, “Egyptian Religion,” 352–53. 10.  This translation is from Michael V. Fox, The Song of Songs and the Ancient Egyptian Love Songs (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985), 66–67.

A

Gazelles

263

This song communicates well the vulnerability and power of the gazelle. The gazelle has shaky legs, a weary body and is fearful because it is vulnerable to the hunter’s pursuit. Yet, it is also successful in evading the hunter, who “can’t even see his dust,” communicating something of the power of this animal in its ability to survive threatening circumstances, like the desert or a hunter. The gazelle is also depicted as having a sort of instinctual wisdom, as it prudently sees that resting may result in being trapped. Besides being useful defensive weapons, the horns of animals also had symbolic meaning, representing health, strength and dignity, and were “used in mythological, hymnic, and iconographic contexts to connote divine or supernatural power.”11 As Aubrey Buster notes, in Egypt, the horns of the gazelle, ox and ram “symbolized power and glory,” so that “several deities and pharaoh are pictured as horned beasts or wearing horned crowns.”12 As Bosman observes, “Like the Egyptians, the Sumerians, Babylonians and Assyrians also associated animal traits with certain divine attributes, without ever equating the animals with the gods and without participating in animal worship.”13 Given the anthropomorphic form of Mesopotamian deities, “the frequent use of animal characteristics such as strength, speed, ferocity and sexual passion to represent divine characteristics” allowed them to become more than human.14 In fact, it was speculated that “certain wild animals had arisen from the death of gods,” so that the ass was the ghost of Illil, the wolf the ghost of Anu and gazelles the daughters of Bel, whom he made roam the plain.15 The word for gazelle in Akkadian, ṣabītu, is a pun on ṣabātu, “to seize, capture.”16 Gazelles were hunted and sacrificed to the gods in ancient Mesopotamia, and the Sumerian patron moon god Nanna was thought to enjoy the taste of gazelle meat especially.17 Gazelles featured in the sacrificial ceremonies for the month of Abu at Emar, the festival for Nanna at Ur, and in the ÈŠ.ÈŠ. festivals

11.  Aubrey E. Buster, “Horn,” EBR 12:394. 12.  Buster, “Horn,” 12:394. Their horns were also used in jewelry, tools and weapons. 13.  Bosman, “Animal Symbolism,” 2:2. 14.  Ibid., 2:2. 15.  JoAnn Scurlock, “Animals in Ancient Mesopotamian Religion,” in Collins, ed., History of the Animal World, 361–87 (362). 16.  Scurlock, “Ancient Mesopotamian Religion,” 372–73. 17.  Scurlock, “Animal Sacrifice in Ancient Mesopotamian Religion,” in Collins, ed., History of the Animal World, 389–404 (392).

264

Human Interaction with the Natural World

of Enlil and Ninlil.18 The Akkadian diviners’ prayers were written for the offering of certain animals, and in The Sacrificial Gazelle prayer the focus is on the innocence, purity, beauty, radiance and freedom of the gazelle being brought for sacrifice: …a pure fawn, offspring of a gazelle, whose eyes are bright-hued, whose features are radiant(?), a pure, tawny sacrificial animal, offspring of a gazelle, whose mother bore him in the steppe, and the steppe set its kind protection over him. The steppe raised him like a father, and the pasture like a mother. When the warrior Adad saw him, he would rain abundance(?) upon him… (The Sacrificial Gazelle III.52.d)19

In the Epic of Gilgamesh, Enkidu is wild like the animals and is described as: feeding on grass with the very gazelles. (Gilgamesh I.11020)

Like the other animals, he shows up to the watering-hole and is again likened to a gazelle: The animals arrived, they enjoyed the water, and also Enkidu himself, whose birthplace was the hills. Feeding on grass with the very gazelles, jostling at the water-hole with the herd, he enjoyed the water with the animals. (Gilgamesh I.173–7721)

Enkidu is even said to be birthed by a gazelle: O Enkidu, [whom] your mother, a gazelle, and your father, a wild donkey, [created.] (Gilgamesh VIII.3–422)

18.  Scurlock, “Animal Sacrifice,” 392 n. 13. 19.  This translation is from Benjamin R. Foster, Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature, 3rd ed. (Bethesda: CDL, 2005), 755–56. 20.  This translation is from A. R. George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform Texts, 2 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 1:545. 21.  Ibid., 1:549. 22.  Ibid., 1:651. As George (1:142) notes, Enkidu is depicted as a wild man, “born outside civilization and succoured by wild animals…[which] has parallels in the folklore of other cultures,” so the mythological reference to his mother as a gazelle and father as a donkey contributes to this depiction of him as wild and animalistic.

A

Gazelles

265

Gazelles appear frequently in Mesopotamian love literature and iconography. Enlil gives a number of exotic animals, including gazelles, to his bride Ninlil (Akkadian Belit).23 Her association with gazelles is not surprising, as in Assyrian documents, Belit (Sumerian Ninlil) is sometimes identified with Ištar (Sumerian Inanna) of Nineveh, the powerful goddess of love who is often depicted as accompanied by gazelles.24 In the love song A Faithful Lover in Old Babylonian Dialogue, the man is compared to a gazelle: [My(?)] gazelle […] I run but I cannot [reach him], She gave him to Ištar as a gift. (Faithful Lover, No. 16)25

The “gazelle” represents the man, whom she cannot reach, and the mention of Ištar in the following stich, “She gave him to Ištar as a gift,” draws on the association of gazelles with Ištar, the goddess of love. In the Akkadian Love Lyrics of Nabû and Tašmetu, Nabû compares Tašmetu’s thighs to gazelles: Nabû: [Let me pro]vide a new chariot for you (f.) [……]! …whose thighs are a gazelle in the plain! (Love Lyrics of Nabû and Tašmetu)26

Within the wild man trope, Enkidu is a liminal figure between man and beast. Most importantly here, his likening to a gazelle communicates grace, power, agility and speed. 23.  Miguel Civil, “Enlil and Ninlil: The Marriage of Sud,” JAOS 103 (1983): 43–66 (60); cf. Benjamin R. Foster, “Animals in Mesopotamian Literature,” in Collins, ed., History of the Animal World, 271–288 (286). 24.  Vincent Hale, Mesopotamian Gods & Goddesses (New York: Britannica Educational Publishing, 2014), Kindle edition, Chapter 3, “Ninlil” and “Ishtar”; Keel, Songs, 92, 150–51, 221, 244, Figs. 45–48, 125, 138. 25.  ZA 49, 168–169, Rev. col. iii 3–4. This translation is from Nathan Wasserman, Akkadian Love Literature of the Third and Second Millennium BCE, Leipziger Altorientalistische Studien 4 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2016), 177, 180. 26.  IM 3233 = TIM 9 54 = SAA III, 14, Rev. 5 in Martti Nissinen, “Love Lyrics of Nabû and Tašmetu: An Assyrian Song of Songs?,” in “Und Moses schrieb diese Lied auf”: Studien zum Alten Testament und zum alten Orient Festschrift für Oswald Loretz zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres, ed. Manfried Dietrich and Ingo Kottsieper, AOAT 250 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1998), 589.

266

Human Interaction with the Natural World

As Martti Nissinen notes, the gazelle “is often identified with a goddess, and in ancient Near Eastern iconography it frequently appears as an escort of a goddess and within the Tree of Life motif.”27 The metaphor thus communicates praise, power, life and wonder, and perhaps the agility and softness of her thighs. As Othmar Keel observes, numerous sources show close connections between goddesses of love and gazelles.28 Gazelles are also mentioned in the Hittite Chronicle attributed to King Anitta, and together with a number of other animals “were the consummate prey for hunters.”29 They appear in several Hittite lists of animals in various genres, and are called “animals of the gods” in KI.LAM, “a phrase that may signify their special importance in Hittite religious ideology.”30 Gazelles are used as an epithet or metaphor for nobility in the Kirta Epic from Ugarit.31 Yet, a gold plate from Ugarit depicts a Canaanite royal hunt where gazelles and bulls are pursued by a chariot and hunting dogs,32 showing that they were also hunted by royalty. Gazelles are associated with both the Ugaritic goddess Anat/Astarte (counterpart of the Akkadian Ištar), who was a huntress and benefactress of animals, and the SyroPalestinian Asherah.33 A gold pendent from Minet el-Beida near Ugarit depicts Anat/Astarte holding a gazelle in each hand and images of the sacred tree of Asherah are often flanked by gazelles (see Fig. 2).34

27.  Nissinen, “Nabû,” 612. Cf. Keel, Songs, 116, 148, Fig. 89. 28.  Keel, Songs, 92, 150–51, Figs. 45–48, 67. 29.  Billie Jean Collins, “Animals in Hittite Literature,” in Collins, ed., History of the Animal World, 237–50 (250). 30.  Ibid., 250; Billie Jean Collins, “Animals in the Religions of Ancient Anatolia,” in Collins, ed., History of the Animal World, 309–34 (328). 31.  Borowski, “Literatures of Syria-Palestine,” 304; cf. “The Kirta Epic,” trans. Dennis Pardee (COS 1.102:333–43), esp. 338 and n. 56; Patrick D. Miller, “Animal Names as Designations in Ugaritic and Hebrew,” UF 2 (1970): 178; E. L. Greenstein, “Kirta,” in Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, ed. S. B. Parker (Atlanta: SBL, 1997), 27 and nn. 81 and 82. 32.  Borowski, “Literatures of Syria-Palestine,” 293. 33.  Oded Borowski, “Animals in the Religions of Syria-Palestine,” in Collins, ed., History of the Animal World, 405–24 (410); Hale, Mesopotamian, Chapter 3, “Ishtar.” 34.  Borowski, “Religions of Syria-Palestine,” 410. Note the similarity between the gold pendant from Minet el-Beida of Anat standing on a lion, holding gazelles, in Keel, Songs, 90–91, Fig. 47, and the Asherah tree standing on a lion with ibexes found on Pithos A, apud Meshel, Kuntillet Ajrud in Meindert Dijkstra, “I Have Blessed You by YHWH of Samaria and His Asherah: Texts with Religious Elements from the Soil Archive of Ancient Israel,” in Only One God? Monotheism in Ancient Israel and

A

Gazelles

267

Fig. 18.2. Gold pendant depicting the goddess standing on a lion, holding a gazelle in each hand with snakes crossing behind her waist (Minet el-Beida, Ugarit, ca. 1350 BCE). © Othmar Keel/Theologischer Verlag Zürich/ Fortress Press.

As Oded Borowski notes, while the symbolism of the animals flanking the tree is not clear, the fact that lions, birds, sphinxes and anthropoids

the Veneration of the Goddess Asherah, ed. Bob Becking et al. (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001), 27, Fig. 2; cf. Keel, Songs, 116, Figs. 65 and 66. The goddess and tree (surrounded by lions and ibexes/gazelles) are also interchangeable in the cult stand from Tell Ta’anek (see Karel J. H. Vriezen, “Archaeological Traces of Cult in Ancient Israel,” in Becking et al., Only One God?, 57). Goddesses, especially Ištar, are often depicted standing on lions (see Keel, Songs, Figs. 47, 59, 94–99; James B. Pritchard, The Ancient Near East: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011], Plates 129 and 258; Izak Cornelius, The Many Face of the Goddess: The Iconography of the Syro-Palestinian Goddess Anat, Astarte, Qedeshet, and Asherah c.1500–1000 BCE, OBO 204 [Fribourg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008], Plates 5.1–5.20 and Fig. B).

268

Human Interaction with the Natural World

sometimes replace the gazelles means that they are likely interchangeable symbols of power (see Fig. 3).35

Fig. 18.3. Painting on small Egyptian chest in which the goddess in the middle is replaced with the Tree of Life (made up of lotuses), which is flanked by gazelles (Egypt, ca. fourteenth/thirteenth century BCE). © Othmar Keel/Theologischer Verlag Zürich/Fortress Press.

As Keel notes, gazelles are found in the iconography of over one hundred scarabs and scaraboids from Palestine/Israel from 1150–586 BCE.36 Gazelles in the Biblical Material Gazelles reflect similar symbolic meanings in the biblical material. Two types of gazelles were native to ancient Israel: the Gazella gazelle, a grayish-brown mountain gazelle, and the Gazella dorcas, a red-dishbrown gazelle found in the desert.37 Both are referred to with the Hebrew word ‫)צ ִביָּ ה( ְצ ִבי‬, ְ which means “gazelle” rather than “deer.”38 As Jehuda 35.  Borowski, “Religions of Syria-Palestine,” 410. 36.  Keel, Songs, 150. 37.  Annette Schellenberg, “Gazelle,” EBR 9:1057; Allan S. Gilbert, “The Native Fauna of the Ancient Near East,” in Collins, ed., History of the Animal World, 3–75 (21–24); Jehuda Feliks, “Gazelle,” EncJud 7:403; Baly, “Gazelle,” HBD 319. See the images of the Mountain gazelle and Dorcas gazelle in Zohar Amar, Ram Bouchnick and Guy Bar-Oz, “The Contribution of Archaeozoology to the Identification of the Ritually Clean Ungulates Mentioned in the Hebrew Bible,” JHS 10, no. 1 (2010): 22–23. Gilbert (57), lists 16 subfamilies of gazelles across the ancient Near East. 38.  Schellenberg, “Gazelle,” 9:1057; Feliks, “Gazelle,” 7:403. Schellenberg (1057) notes that ‫ ְצ ִבי‬can also mean “ornament” or “glory,” and both J. Cheryl Exum (Song of Songs, OTL [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005], 121) and Roland

A

Gazelles

269

Feliks notes, “Whereas, however, the horns of the deer are branched and solid (‘antlers’), the Talmud clearly states that those of the ẓevi are unbranched (Hul. 59b) and hollow (TJ, Er. 1:17, 19b).”39 The ‫ְצ ִבי‬ represents the mountain/dorcas gazelle, while the ‫)איָּ ָלה( ַאיָּ ל‬ ַ represents the Mesopotamian fallow deer (Dama mesopotamica), red deer (Cervus elaphus) and roe deer (Capreolus capreolus), together comprising “the common clean ungulates in the southern Levant at the time.”40 The ‫ ְצ ִבי‬is listed among clean wild animals that may be eaten in Deut 12:15, 22; 14:5; 15:22 and 1 Kgs 5:3[H]. These texts demonstrate that the ‫ ְצ ִבי‬and ‫ ַאיָּ ל‬were “the most common wild game in the diet of the ancient Israelites” and this is “supported by the archaeozoological research which indicates that these are the most abundant species in archaeological sites.”41 Gazelles were thus hunted for their delicate and delicious meat, as depicted in Isa 13:14, Prov 6:5 and Sir 27:16–21. Isaiah 13:14 uses the image of a “hunted gazelle” (NRSV) or “gazelle that is chased” (JPS) to show “how vulnerable humans will be on the day of God’s wrath.”42 It should be noted that a connection is made here between what can be observed in the animal world (nature) and the human predicament, an idea that I will return to momentarily. The vulnerability of the hunted gazelle who faces great danger is used to communicate a truth about human vulnerability in Isa 13:14. The gazelle is also depicted as hunted in Prov 6:5, where the youth is advised to “save yourself as a gazelle from the hand [of a hunter], as a bird from the hand of a fowler.”43 E. Murphy (Song of Songs: A Commentary on The Book of Canticles or The Song of Songs, Hermeneia [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990], 137, 139) note that ‫ ְצ ִבי‬is a homonym for “gazelle” or “beauty.” 39.  Feliks, “Gazelle,” 7:403; cf. Gilbert, “Native Fauna,” 24. Feliks (7:403) and Ari Zivotofsky (“Fauna, Biblical: II. Judaism,” EBR 8:995) both note that since gazelles were not found in Europe, the ‫ ְצ ִבי‬was mistakenly identified as “deer” by Bible translators. 40.  Amar, Bouchnick and Bar-Oz, “Contribution of Archaeozoology,” 6. As they (6) note, ‫ ַאיָּ ל‬are mentioned 21 times in the Hebrew Bible and ‫ ְצ ִבי‬12 times, reflecting “the deep imprint made by these animals on the landscape of the land of at that time.” 41.  Amar, Bouchnick and Bar-Oz, “Contribution of Archaeozoology,” 6; cf. 13. Their Table 3 (20; cf. 6) notes 60 sites with deer bones and 51 sites with gazelle bones, while their Table 2 (19) notes 72 sites with deer bones and 86 sites with gazelle bones. 42.  Schellenberg, “Gazelle,” 9:1057. 43.  My translation. Some supply a missing word, [‫מיד ]ציד‬, “from the hand [of a hunter]”; see the discussion in Tova L. Forti, Animal Imagery in the Book of Proverbs, VTSup 118 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 43. Others, like Murphy (Proverbs, WBC 22 [Nashville: Nelson, 1998], 36 n. 5a), think that the repetition of ‫ מיד‬is suspect and follow BHS in reading the first as simply ‫מציד‬, “from a hunter.”

270

Human Interaction with the Natural World

The synonymous parallelism shows that both the gazelle and bird are targeted by the hunter, and the hunting imagery is used “to illustrate the seriousness of the guarantor’s situation.”44 Sirach 27:16–21 also depicts a hunting scene, and in v. 20 the friend is likened to an innocent gazelle who has escaped from a snare/trap, the friendship of the listener (who betrays secrets). These passages remind us that though the gazelle is vulnerable to being hunted, it has the ability to escape the hand of a hunter, due to its swiftness and agility. In 2 Sam 2:18, Asahel is described as “swift of foot, like a gazelle in the open field” (JPS), and in 1 Chr 12:9[H], the mighty Gadites who followed David are depicted as “swift as gazelles on the mountains” (NRSV; JPS). As both passages show, gazelles were known for their swiftness, and became symbols of speed and agility. Thus, while they were hunted, they were also extremely difficult to catch because they were so fast. In the Song of Songs, gazelles are symbolic of grace, beauty, swiftness, agility, freedom, life, energy, renewal, love and power. In 2:9, 17 and 8:14 the woman describes the male lover as a gazelle, leaping over mountains and bounding over hills, which conveys the swiftness, agility, beauty and freedom of the gazelle. “The gazelle’s delicate appearance, its slender legs, narrow body, and beautiful eyes, made it a symbol of grace and beauty.”45 In 4:5 and 7:4 the man describes the female lover’s breasts as “twins of a gazelle,” which “graze among lotuses” in 4:5. Here, the focus is also on grace, beauty, life, vitality and praise. Gazelles often appear with lotuses in ancient Near Eastern iconography, which are symbolic of life, creation, energy, vitality, regeneration/renewal/rebirth, fecundity and love.46 In 2:7 and 3:5, the women of Jerusalem are asked to swear an oath by gazelles. Yet, interestingly, in the Septuagint, the oath is not sworn ‫“ ִבּ ְצ ָבאוֹת אוֹ ְבּ ַאיְ לוֹת ַה ָשּׂ ֶדה‬by the gazelles or does of the field,” but rather ἐν (ταῖς) δυνάμεσι καὶ ἐν (ταῖς) ἰσχύσεσι τοῦ ἀγροῦ, “by the powers and forces of the field.” The Septuagint may be working from a different source text or Vorlage, or it may be interpreting the semantic meaning of “gazelles and does” as “powers and forces.” As often noted, ‫ ִבּ ְצ ָבאוֹת‬is a circumloֵ El cution for ‫ֹלהי( ְצ ָבאוֹת‬ ֵ ‫)א‬, ֱ (God of) hosts, and ‫ ְבּ ַאיְ לוֹת ַה ָשּׂ ֶדה‬for ‫אל ַשׁ ַדּי‬, Shadday, so that the animal names recall the divine titles, whilst avoiding the divine name. Yet, as mentioned above, gazelles in the ancient Near East were symbolic of love, power, speed, agility, beauty, freedom and energy, and were especially associated with Ištar, the powerful goddess of 44.  Forti, “Animal Imagery,” 43–44. 45.  Feliks, “Gazelle,” 7:403. 46.  Keel, Songs, 116–17, Figs. 66 and 67; Fox, Songs, 34 and 13; Exum, Songs, 114.

A

Gazelles

271

love.47 They inhabited the fields (steppe) and deserts, and were symbols of power in their ability to triumph over chaotic and deadly forces, like the desert.48 As representations of life, power and renewal, as well as circumlocutions for God, the Septuagint scribe(s) could have interpreted the semantic meaning of ‫בּ ְצ ָבאוֹת אוֹ ְבּ ַאיְ לוֹת‬, ִ “gazelles and does,” as (ταῖς) δυνάμεσι καὶ ἐν (ταῖς) ἰσχύσεσι, “powers and forces.” Animal Symbolism and Biblical Wisdom Literature Animal symbolism is rhetorically effective in most literary genres of the Hebrew Bible,49 as it stimulates associations and representations of human and divine behavior. It forms an empirical link between what can be observed in the animal world (nature) and human/divine life and behavior. The biblical wisdom literature shares this empirical assumption that one can learn from the natural order, and as Katharine Dell notes, uses rich imagery from the animal world “to illuminate and prescribe human behavior on the basis of what is observed of animal behaviour.”50 We saw this in Isa 13:14, where the rich image of the “hunted gazelle” reflects the vulnerability of humans on the Day of God’s wrath. A connection is made between what can be observed in the animal world and the human predicament. The vulnerability of the hunted gazelle is used to illustrate a truth about human vulnerability. Likewise, in 2 Sam 2:18 and 1 Chr 12:9[H], the imagery of the swift gazelle is used to illustrate the speed and agility of Asahel and the Gadites. In Song 2:9, 17; 4:5; 7:4 and 8:14, the gazelle imagery is used to illuminate the beauty, grace, swiftness, agility, vitality, energy and freedom of the lovers. Biblical wisdom literature also uses animal imagery prescriptively, “to instruct human beings as to how they should behave.”51 The link with creation/order is important. At creation, God was thought to have infused the world with order and regularity, in nature (the animal world) and human affairs, so that humans could observe and learn from it, aligning themselves with this order and regularity, and implementing it into their

47.  Keel, Songs, 96; Wasserman, Akkadian, 177, 180; Nissinen, “Nabû,” 612; Exum, Songs, 119; Murphy, Songs, 133, 137. 48.  Keel, Songs, 150. 49.  Bosman, “Animal Symbolism,” 2:5–6. 50.  Katharine J. Dell, “The Use of Animal Imagery in the Psalms and Wisdom Literature of Ancient Israel,” SJT 53, no. 3 (2000): 275–99 (276, 278, 281). 51.  Ibid., 283.

272

Human Interaction with the Natural World

lives.52 They could observe the natural world, including the animal world, to discover patterns of cause and effect, and derive from it lessons or instructions that could be transferred to other situations in human life. As Tova Forti notes, “Imagery borrowed from the animal kingdom and from other natural phenomena is presented in a rich variety of rhetorical patterns that offer an empirical perspective aimed at providing guidance concerning the appropriate conduct (practical, legal, or ethical) in diverse life situations.”53 This is what we saw in Prov 6:5. The image of the “hunted gazelle” is used to prescribe human behavior and provide guidance concerning appropriate conduct in this type of situation. Humans are advised to be like the gazelle, who has the potential to escape, and save themselves from surety as the gazelle saves itself from the hunter. Likewise in Sir 27:16–21, the image of the “hunted gazelle” is used to prescribe human behavior and recommend appropriate conduct: the betrayed friend of the listener is like a gazelle who has escaped a snare/ trap, and the listener/reader should not attempt to go after or recapture them, as they, like the gazelle, are now “too far off” (NRSV). The gazelle imagery is rhetorically effective. It forms an empirical link between what can be observed in nature (the animal world) and human life and behavior, so that humans can learn from it. Gazelles as Symbols of Vulnerability and Power As we have seen, gazelles have symbolic meaning in numerous cultures throughout the ancient Near East. They symbolize a number of traits, and even somewhat opposite traits, like vulnerability and power, in both the iconography and literature of the ancient Near East. Here, finally I will focus on their embodiment of power, despite their vulnerability, and what this reflects about the interrelationship of these concepts within the created order. As noted, gazelles were hunted across the ancient Near East, in Egypt, Sumer, Assyria, Babylon, Anatolia, Ugarit and Israel, and thus were extremely vulnerable. Yet, they were also adept at evading capture, due to their speed and agility, which made them an elusive, resilient and brave animals. Gazelles were known for their ability to survive dangerous situations and triumph over chaotic and deadly forces, like being hunted and surviving in the desert. As such, they also became symbols of power. In 52.  See J. L. Andruska, Wise and Foolish Love in the Song of Songs, OTS 75 (Leiden: Brill, 2019), 101, 125. 53.  Forti, “Animal Imagery,” 12.

A

Gazelles

273

ancient Near Eastern iconography, gazelles are associated with a number of powerful gods and goddesses.54 They are especially associated with Ištar and the Egyptian Anuket (Anukis) is even depicted as appearing in the form of a gazelle. Gazelles appear with other powerful animals in the iconography—lions, serpents, scorpions—and sometimes, lions, birds, sphinxes and anthropoids replace gazelles, making it likely that they were seen as interchangeable symbols of power.55 Even the horn of the gazelle symbolized strength and power in the ancient Near East.56 Gazelles have an interesting association with power in the Septuagint translation of the refrains in the biblical Song of Songs, as ‫בּ ְצ ָבאוֹת‬, ִ “gazelles,” becomes δυνάμεσι “powers,” and this harkens back to the proverbial meaning of gazelles in the ancient Near East, as symbols of power. As we saw in the Egyptian P. Chester Beatty I, gazelles could be depicted as powerful and vulnerable within the same context, even demonstrating a sort of instinctual wisdom. As Arthur Walker-Jones observes, Prov 6:5 also seems to assume that “birds and gazelles can exercise practical wisdom to escape hunters.”57 Collectively, the passages discussed show that gazelles are symbolic of both power and vulnerability in the Hebrew Bible and ancient Near East. They are vulnerable to being hunted and face many dangers, yet their speed, agility and even instinctual wisdom aid them in evading capture. They embody power despite their vulnerability, and this reflects something about the interrelationship of these concepts within the created order and within human life. These dual traits of gazelles illustrate that vulnerable beings can also be powerful, and that power can be found in vulnerability. Those that are “hunted,” so to speak, can find unexpected resources of resilience, survival and power. What is true of gazelles in the animal world can also be true of humans, and we see similar reversal themes throughout biblical literature. In Prov 30:24–28, a number of creatures that might be seen as lowly, small and vulnerable—ants, badgers, locusts and lizards—are considered the “wisest of the wise” (NRSV). Reversal stories, where the youngest, smallest or most vulnerable, the underdog, becomes someone prominent and powerful are also common. 54.  See above: Horus, Anuket (Anukis), Bel (Marduk), Nanna (Akkadian Sin), Enlil and Ninlil (Akkadian Belit), *Ištar (Sumerian Inanna), Tašmetu, Anat/Astarte (counterpart of the Akkadian Ištar) and Asherah. 55.  Teeter, “Egyptian Religion,” 352–53; Borowski, “Religions of SyriaPalestine,” 410. 56.  Buster, “Horn,” 12:394. 57.  Arthur Walker-Jones, “Naming the Human Animal: Genesis 1–3 and Other Animals in Human Becoming,” Zygon 52, no. 4 (2017): 1005–28 (1022).

274

Human Interaction with the Natural World

Jacob inherits instead of his elder brother Esau. Joseph ends up in a powerful position over his elder brothers in Egypt. David is smaller than Goliath, yet defeats him, and is the youngest of six brothers, yet becomes king of Israel. The gazelle’s embodiment of power despite its vulnerability can be emulated by humans, and there are precedents for this in the Hebrew Bible and across the ancient Near East. Conclusion Gazelles are symbols of both power and vulnerability in the Hebrew Bible and ancient Near East. We have surveyed the symbolism of gazelles in the literature and iconography of the ancient Near East, their symbolic meanings in the biblical material, the empirical link between what is observed in the animal world and human life/behavior, and what the gazelle’s embodiment of power despite its vulnerability reflects about the interrelationship of these concepts within the created order. Gazelles illustrate that vulnerable beings can also be powerful, and that power can be found in vulnerability. Humans can emulate gazelles, demonstrating stunning reserves of resilience, survival and power.

I

H B O T Genesis 1 1:11–12 1:12 1:20–21 1:20 1:21 1:22 1:24–27 1:24–25 1:24 1:25 1:26–28 1:27 1:29 1:30 2 2:7 2:18 2:19–20 2:23 3 3:15 3:17–19 3:19 3:21 4:3 4:4 6:12 8:6–12 8:20 9:3 9:4 9:5

/

31, 102 162 143 143 102 102 102 102 143 102 102 102 102 102 69 103 69 103 103, 183 103 107, 115 104 14 14 104 106 106 107 137 106 105, 183 105, 256 105

R

9:16–17 9:17 12:8 13:5 16:12 18:25 24:64 25:15 25:20 25:25 26:14 26:22 27:16 29:1 29:17 30 30:14–15 30:25–43 30:37–40 30:37–38 30:37 30:38 30:40 31:24 32:5 37:33 39:6 41:18 42:9 43:16 48:3–7 49 49:9 49:14 49:17

111 107 230 174 26, 107 21 106 239 163 107 174 230 107 238 134 5, 169 82 158, 163– 65 163, 168 164 163 163, 164 164, 168 163 150 105 134 134 77, 89 175 157 108 108 108 108

49:21 49:27

108 93, 108

Exodus 12:22 20:14 21:37 22:30 23:5 23:12 23:19 24:6 26:1 26:31 28:3 28:6 28:15 29 31:3–5 34:3 34:26 35:34 39:29

239 150 174 94 109 110 144, 150 257 143 143 238 143 143 257 238 174 150 238 143

Leviticus 1 1:2 1:9 3:7 3:17 4–5 4 4:7 6:2–6 6:17–23 7:26–27

258 174 106, 107 258 256 258 257 257 258 258 256

276

Index of References

Leviticus (cont.) 11 257 11:15 25 11:34 142 12:8 174 14:4–7 239 14:21–22 174 14:49–51 239 17:11 256 17:12 256 17:13–14 105 17:14 256 19 144, 148, 151 19:16 91 19:19 4, 141, 142, 147, 149, 153, 154 22:27–28 150 23:40 259 26:6 105 27:32 174 Numbers 12:8 15:38 16:1–17:15 16:1–50 ET 17 17:1–11 ET

17:1–2 ET 17:2 ET 17:2–8 ET 17:3 ET 17:4 ET 17:4–5 ET 17:5 ET 17:6 ET 17:7 ET 17:7–8 ET 17:8 ET 17:16–26

241 143 161 161 163, 169 158, 159, 161, 164, 165 161 161 168 162 162 161 162, 164 162 162 162 162 4, 155, 158, 159,

17:16–17 17:17–23 17:17 17:18 17:19–20 17:19 17:20 17:21 17:22–23 17:22 17:23 19:6 19:18 22:30 23:22 24 24:4 24:8 24:16 27:17 28

161, 164, 165 161 168 161 162 161 162 162, 164 162 162 162 162 239 239 106 27 52 52 27 52–54 70 107

Deuteronomy 1:14–16 243 8:15 82 10:15 166 12 237 12:15 269 12:21 174 12:22 269 12:23–25 105 12:23–24 256 14:5 269 14:14 25 14:21 150 15:22 269 15:23 256 16:2 174 16:18–19 243 18:5 161 21:11 134 22 144, 151 22:1 70 22:4 150 22:6–7 150

22:9–11 22:10

23:19 23:25 24:1 25:4 27:7 28:26 28:39 30:19 32:1 32:8–9 32:8 33:17 33:20

147, 153 76, 141, 148, 150, 151, 153 94 148 89 110, 150 259 105 55 123 123 167 168 27 75

Joshua 15:18

106

Judges 5:16 6:3 6:33 10:4 14:12–16 14:18 15:5

131 238 238 106 241 149 148

1 Samuel 2–3 2:28 12:6–11 17:34–36 17:42 17:43 17:46 24:15 25:11

160 161 157 95 134 94 105 94 175

2 Samuel 2:18 3:8 6:26–27 7:8 8:1–6

270, 271 94 237 71 237

Index of References 9:8 12 12:1–4 12:3 13:1 13:29 14:4–5 14:27 15:37 16:9 16:16 17:8 18:9 24:17 1 Kings 1–2 1:25 1:33 1:38 1:44 2:1–9 2:6 2:9 3:9 3:12 3:15–28 3:16–27 3:28 4:1–5:8 4:1–21 4:5 5:1 5:3 5:7 ET 5:9–14 5:10 5:12–13 5:20–25 5:21 5:26 5:32 7:13–14 9:28

94 51 175 58, 109 134 146 237 134 51 94 51 95 146 70, 165

10:1–13 10:1 10:2 10:5 10:14 10:15 10:18 10:22 10:25 11:41 14:11 16:4 19:19–21 19:19 22:17

240, 243 240 240 240 240 91 106 106 146 243 94 94 149 106 71

236 175 146 146 146 236 236 230, 236 243 230, 236, 237, 243 236 243 237, 243 237 120 51 236 105, 269 230 243 238 101, 236, 239 237 230, 237, 243 237, 243 237 238 240

2 Kings 1:8 2:24 3:4 5:17 8:13 9:10 9:35–36 17:25 17:26–27 19:26 19:30

106 95 72 146 94 95 95 105 24 11 162

Isaiah 1:2 1:3 1:11 1:30 5:1–7 5:14 10 11 11:4 11:7 11:8 13:1 13:14 14:11 14:28 17:13

123 150 106 15 166 60 14 104 238 95 104 52 71, 269, 271 105 52 15

277 22:20 27:2 27:16–21 27:20 28:1 30:24 31:5 34:4 37:27 38:10–20 38:14 40:8 40:11 40:27 43:20 47:2 49:14 50:6–7 50:6 50:7 51:17 52:13– 53:12 53

150 166 270 270 162 150 108 15 11 128 128 11 109 171 112 139 171 172 171 172 77

55:12 56:7 56:10 59:11 60:8–9 60:8 63:15 64:6 64:7–11 66:20

172 5, 171, 173, 174, 178, 179 172 176 167, 171, 172 123 259 94 95, 128 129, 130 129 171 15 171 146

Jeremiah 2:24 3:4 5:6 5:26–28 5:26–27

26 176 93 78 79

53:6 53:7–8 53:7

278

Index of References

Jeremiah (cont.) 5:27 78, 87, 91, 92 7:21–23 106 8:13 15 11 5, 171, 174, 175, 179 11:16 134 11:18–19 175 11:19 176, 177 12:3 176, 177 12:10 166 14:6 26 15:3 95 17:6 26 17:8 162 23:1–4 173 23:1 71 48:6 26 48:28 130 49:16 31 50:6 71 50:8 167 51:27 30

34:8 47:12

71 15

Hosea 4:14 6:6 7:11 7:12 8:9 9:16 11:11 13:3 13:8

147 106 130–32 130 26 90 130–32 15 95

Joel 1:18 1:20 2:4

70 111 30

Amos 5:11 9:14

95 148

Obadiah 4

31

Ezekiel 1:17 7:1–27 7:3 7:8–9 7:15 7:16 12:10 22:9 22:27 23:20 25:4 27:3 27:14 31:3 33:32 34

Jonah 1:11 4:11

53 111

Micah 2:12 6:6–8 7:14

71 106 167

Nahum 1:1 2:8

52 129

Habakkuk 1:1 1:8

52 93

Zephaniah 3:3

93

34:2–3 34:6

143 129 129 129 129 128, 129 52 91 93 107 238 91 146 134 134 71, 165, 173 71 71

Zechariah 9:1 10:2 11 11:4 12:1 13:4

52 70 165 171 52 106

Malachi 1:1

52

Psalms 1

1:1–2 1:1 1:3–4 1:3 1:4 1:5–6 1:6 7 10:3 10:8–9 10:9 15:1–6 19 19:1–2 22:17 22:21 22:22 Heb 23:1–2 28:9 32 33:1 35:5 35:7 36:7 37 37:2 37:35–36 39 40:7

2, 9, 11, 15, 16, 18–22 15 19 10, 11, 16, 19 15, 16, 18, 20 15, 16, 19 11, 22 15, 18 10 94 24 24 123 65, 123 123 94, 108 27 27 109 167 65 134 10, 15 79 111 65 11, 18 10 64, 65 106

Index of References 44

44:5–9 44:11 44:12 44:18–19 44:21–22 44:22 44:23 44:24 49 49:2 49:7–8 49:7 49:8 49:9–21 49:9 49:10 49:11 49:12 49:13 49:13 Heb 49:13 MT 49:14–15 49:14 49:15 49:17 49:20 49:21 49:21 Heb 52:8 ET 52:10 55:7 55:14 56:1 59:7 59:15 68:12 68:13 68:14 69:9 73 74:1

5, 171, 173, 178, 179 173 71 173 173 173 71 173, 174 173 3, 64, 65, 71, 72 68 65 65 67 64, 65 65 66, 67 66 3, 64, 67–69 67, 69 3, 68 64 70 67, 70 67, 71 68 3, 68 69 3, 68 10 10 129 176 130 94 94 131 131 131 97 10, 64, 65 70

74:13–14 77:21 78:52 78:71 79:13 80:2 80:9–20 83:12 ET 83:13 83:14 84:5 89:49 90

90:2 90:3 90:5–6 90:6 90:7–9 90:8 90:9–10 90:10 90:12 90:13–17 90:14 92:8 92:10 92:11 Heb 92:12 ET 92:13 95:7 96:11–13 98:7–9 100:3 102:8 102:12 103:13–14 103:15–16 104 104:11 104:18 104:21 107:27

36 167 71, 165 167 109, 173 109, 173 166 10 10 15 178 65 2, 9–11, 13, 15, 16, 19–22 18 12, 14 11–14, 17, 18, 20 17–19 13 17 16 13, 14 12, 22 17, 20 17 11 27 27 10 10 71, 109, 173 123 123 71, 173 108 11 17 11 42, 111 26 25 107, 111 238

279 116:6 119:176 124:7 128 129:6 139 14:21 140:6 145:10 145:15–16 147:1 147:9 148 148:10 Proverbs 1 1:4 1:6 1:8 1:10–19 1:10 1:17–18 1:17 1:18 1:19 1:20 1:22 2:1 2:17 3:1 4:1 5:19 6:1–5 6:2 6:5 6:6–11 6:6–8 6:6–7 6:8 6:16 7

7:6

177 70 108 65 11 64 112 91 112 111 134 25, 111 121 112

79 79 241 221 73, 178 221 67, 79 178 227 94 29 96 221 176 221 221 25 73 227 88, 269, 272, 273 73, 74 108 240 55 61 5, 171, 174, 177, 179 177

280 Proverbs (cont.) 7:8 177 7:11 177 7:12 177 7:19 177 7:20 177 7:22–23 178 7:22 177 7:23 79, 178 7:26–27 178 7:27 60 8:3 29 9:2 175 9:7 96 10:5 55 10:28 15 11:13 91 11:22 50, 134 12:10 109 12:13 227 13:1 96 13:9 19 14:4 74, 149 15:2 96 15:17 74 15:27 94 17:7 134 17:12 95 18:17 227 20:19 91 21:19 83 21:31 29 22:10 96 22:17–23:11 239 23:1–8 50 23:32 73, 81 24:23–34 50 24:23–24 50 25–29 230 25:1 230, 244 25:24 83 26:3 74 26:11 94 26:13 105 26:27 227 27:1 74

Index of References 27:6 27:8 27:23 28:15 30 30:1–33 30:1–14 30:1–10 30:1–9 30:1–3 30:1 30:2–3 30:2 30:3 30:8–9 30:8 30:9 30:10–33 30:10 30:11–14 30:11 30:12 30:13 30:14 30:15–33 30:15–31 30:15–16 30:15 30:17 30:18–20 30:18–19 30:19 30:20 30:21–23 30:24–28 30:25 30:26 30:27 30:28 30:29–31 30:30

72 73 151 95 3, 48–50, 58, 63 50 50 48, 50 48, 50 51 48, 50, 51, 61, 238 53 53, 54, 57 53, 54, 62 59 59 59 50, 56, 61, 62 61, 63 50, 58, 59, 61, 62 59 59 59 57, 59 50 62 59–62 57, 60, 61 57, 60–62 59–61 62 57 62 59–62 59–61, 240, 273 57 57 57 57 59, 61, 62 57

30:31 30:32–33 30:32 31:1

57 61, 63 61, 63 52, 239

Job 1:3 1:14 3:8 4–5 4:8 4:10 4:11 4:13 4:16 4:17–18 4:17 4:18–19 4:18 4:19–21 4:19–20 4:19 4:20 4:21 5 5:2–5 5:3 5:6–7 5:6 5:7 5:8 5:13–13 5:22 7:12 8 8:8–10 8:11–22 8:11–13 8:12 8:13 8:16 8:20–21 9:5 9:26 10:3 10:16

72 149 42, 47 12, 17 13, 14 33 24 12 12 13 12 13 12 13 12 12 12 12 14 14 14 13 14 14 21 15 27 42, 47 14, 19 9 14 15 11, 15 15 17 21 230 31 15, 21 33

Index of References 11:13–15 12 12:1 12:7–9 12:7–8 12:7 12:8 13 13:3–4 13:24 13:25 14 14:1–6 14:1 14:2 14:3 14:6 14:7–10 14:7 14:8–9 14:11 14:13–17 14:14 14:18–19 14:19 18 18:5–21 18:5 18:16 21 21:16 21:17 21:18 22:5 22:21–30 24:5 29:19 30:1 30:9–11 32:15 38–41 38 38:1–38 38:2 38:8–11

21 33 69 9 33, 123, 240 33 10 15 15 16 15, 16, 20 16, 19 20 16 11, 16–18 17 17 20 17 18, 19 18 18 17 18 18 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 15, 19, 20 21 21 26 18 94 43 230 22 34 23, 32 34 43

38:36–37 11 38:39–39:30 2, 11, 22, 23, 32 38:39–40 24, 33 38:41 24, 111 38:42 25 39:1–4 25 39:5–12 111 39:5–8 26 39:7 29, 30 39:9–12 27 39:13–18 28, 73 39:17 29 39:18 27, 30 39:19–25 29 39:19 11 39:22 27 39:26–30 25, 30 39:26 30 39:27–30 31 39:27–28 31 39:27 31 39:28–30 31 40–41 34 40 34 40:4–5 23, 28 40:8 34 40:9 34 40:10 34 40:11 34 40:12 34 40:13 34 40:14 34 40:15–41:33 32 40:15–41:8 111 40:15–32 111 40:15–24 23 40:15 33, 34 40:17 38 40:21 38 40:24–41:29 37 40:25–41:26 23 40:29 106 41:2–3 44 41:5 43 41:11–13 38

281 41:21 42:2–6 42:6 42:12

27 32 46 72

Song of Songs 1:5–8 119 1:5 120, 134, 135 1:8 133, 134 1:9–17 136 1:9 108, 122, 133, 135 1:10 133 1:11 134 1:12–14 134 1:12 137 1:13 120 1:15 120, 127, 133–35 1:16–17 119 1:16 134 1:17 120 2:1 120 2:7 120, 270 2:8–17 137 2:8–10 117 2:8–9 118 2:8 120, 138 2:9 108, 120, 138, 270, 271 2:10–15 119 2:10–12 117 2:10 134, 138 2:12–13 120 2:13 120, 134, 138 2:14 108, 120, 127, 133, 134, 137– 39 2:15 108, 116, 119, 120 2:16 120, 138

282 Song of Songs (cont.) 2:17 108, 117, 120, 138, 270, 271 3:5 120, 270 3:6–11 119, 121 3:6 91, 120 3:9 120 4:1–2 118, 121 4:1 120, 127, 133, 134, 137, 139 4:3 134 4:5 120, 270, 271 4:6 120 4:7 119, 134 4:8–5:1 117 4:8 120 4:10 134 4:11 120 4:14 120 4:15 120 4:16 119 5:1 119, 120 5:2–6:3 136 5:2 120, 127, 133, 137, 139 5:5 120 5:7 117 5:9 134, 136 5:10–16 136 5:10 137 5:11 137 5:12 120, 127, 133, 136, 137 5:13 120 5:15 120 6:1 134 6:2 119 6:3 120 6:4–10 135, 136 6:4 120, 134, 135 6:5–9 135

Index of References 6:5–6 6:5 6:6 6:9

6:10 6:11 7:2 7:3 7:4 7:5 7:7 7:11–13 7:12–13 7:12 7:13 8:9 8:13–14 8:13 8:14

121 120, 135, 136 120 108, 120, 127, 133, 135, 137 134, 135 119 134 120 120, 270, 271 120 134 119 117 119, 120 120 120 117 119 108, 120, 270, 271

Lamentations 3:10 95 4:3 28 Ecclesiastes/Qoheleth 1:4 66 2:4–7 67 2:14–21 66, 72 2:14–16 66 2:14 66 2:15 66 2:16 66 2:18–21 66, 67 2:18 66 2:19 66 2:20 66 2:21 66 3:1–8 26 3:5 70 3:12 70 3:13 70 3:16–21 72

3:18–21 3:19 3:20 3:21 4:30 5:15–16 6:4–5 6:4 6:6 7:1 8:7 8:8 9:4 9:10 9:12 11:29 11:30 12:5 12:7 12:12

67–69 69 69, 70 3, 69–71 91 66 68 67 68, 69 67 66 65 94 69 67 91 91 66 67, 69 221

Daniel 4:30 5:21 7:5

107 26 95

1 Chronicles 1:30 239 12:9 270, 271 12:41 146 2 Chronicles 2:13 238 9:24 146 18:2 175 N T 1 Corinthians 9:9 110 2 Corinthians 6:14 76 Revelation 12–13

39

Index of References A Wisdom of Solomon 12:1 122 Sirach 3:28 4:29–31 4:30 6:18–14:19 8:11 11 11:3 11:10–12:1 11:29–12:18 11:29–34 11:29 11:30

11:31 11:32 11:33 11:34 12:1–7 12:8–18 13:1 13:17–19 13:19 14:17–19 14:17 14:19 18:13 21:2–3 24 25:8 25:16 25:24 26:5 26:6–9 26:6 26:7 26:8 26:9 26:10–12 26:17 27:9–10

96 80 75, 94 89 93 79 76 86 89 89, 90, 96 79, 86, 87, 90, 95, 96 3, 76–79, 83, 85–89, 93–95, 97 79, 90 79 79, 90 79, 90, 96 89 89 96 90 26 75 75 76 167 80, 81 77, 83, 84 76 80, 82 81 82 81 82 77, 82, 83 82 82 82 95 76, 80, 81

27:10 27:16–21 31:26 32:18 33:6 40:11 42:6 42:9–14 42:13 42:14 47:3 50:1–21

80, 83 269, 272 96 96 91 69 81, 82 81 91 82 95 74

2 Maccabees 2.10 161 P 1 Enoch 60.7–10 60.24 85–90

39 39 165

2 Baruch 29.4

39

4 Ezra 5.26 6.49–52

165 39

G L S Liber antiquitatum biblicarum 9.1–7 156, 158 12.1 157 12.8 166 16.1–3 157 17 4, 155, 158–60, 166, 169 17.1–4 157 17.1–3 168 17.1–2 161, 163, 165, 169 17.2 162, 169

283 17.3

17.4

18.11 19.11–12 20.6 23.12 24.6 25.9 26.2 28.4–5 28.4 30.4–5 30.5 31.5 39.4–5 39.4 40.2 41.1 43.5 45.2 47.1 49.8 50.2 52.2 53.2 53.8–10 53.9–10 54.2 57.2 59.4–5 61.2

160, 161, 163, 165, 169 161, 163, 165, 166, 168, 169 166 157 157 166 157 157 157 166 166 167 166, 167 167 165 157 157, 158 157 157 157 157 157 157 160, 162 157 161 160, 161 157 157 157 157

Philo Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin II.35–39 137 De Specialibus Legibus 3.47 147 4.207 143 4.210 143

284

Index of References

Josephus Jewish Antiquities 1.281 158 2.172–175 158 2.281–283 158 2.348 158, 165 3.17–19 158 3.46 158 3.83–88 158 3.317–322 158 4.8 143 4.10 143 4.43–47 158 4.154 158 5.73 158 6.38 158 8.46–48 158 8.228 158 8.314 158 11.306–308 158 11.322–324 158 12.110–113 158 12.182 158 13.198 158 14.384 158 15.130–146 158 15.385 158 16.46–57 158 19.172–184 158 Against Apion 1.113–115 241 1.120 241 R M Erubin 1:17 1:19b Ḥullin 59b Kil’ayim 1–2 8:1

B T Baba Batra 74b–75a 39 Qiddušin 39a

143

Sanhedrin 60a 102a

143 142

SoÓah 48a

173

Yebamot 63a

103

Yoma 67b J Kil’ayim 8:4

269

146 148

106 148

C A C L Aristotle Analytica posteriora 1.1 166 Rhetorica 1.1.3 1.8 2.20 2.24 2.24.3

166 166 157 166 166

142

Cicero De inventione rhetorica 1.49 157

145

Homer Iliad 3.1–9

T

126

M Esther Rabbah 10:1 173

Quintilian Institutio oratoria 5.11.1

Psalms 121

Varro On Agriculture 1:XX 151

173

Pesikta de Rav Kahana, Para 7 142

S

269 269

ch. 46 ch. 49

Vayikra Rabbah (Vilna), Acharei Mot 22 106 J A Alphabet of Rabbi Akiba’ 7 142 Maimonides Guide for the Perplexed Book 3 ch. 32 106

A N E S Akkadian Tab VAT 10151 220 Papyri Anastasi V 10,7–8 211 IV 2, 4–5 185 IV 8,8–9 211 Papyri Chester Beatty I Group B No. 40 262 IV 2,5–3,10 211

Index of References Papyri Lansing 3, 5–10 185 Papyri Sallier I 7,11–8,2 211 Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage 1, 1 214 1, 10 213 1, 6 214 12,11–13,9 209 2,14 209 2,4–5 209 2,9 209 3, 1 213 3, 10 213, 214 3, 11 214 5, 10 214 5, 11–12 214 6, 11 214 7, 2–3 214 8,5 209 9, 2 214 CAD A 142

257

CHD Š 384ff

249

The Complaints of Khakheperre-sonb verso 2–3 209, 214 verso 5 214 verso 6 209 recto 11–12 214 CTH 1 256 106 §12 257 264 251 264 §2: 14 250 264 §4: 39–49 251 264 §17:25 252 264 §18.34 252

378.3 (TX 2015–03–11, TRde 2017–10– 18) §5’ 249 382 obv.12–28 257 413 258 481 253, 257 526 252 638 257 706 252 738 254 CTU 1.3.III.38–42 36 1.3.III.43–47 38 Epic of Gilgamesh I.110 264 I.173–77 264 VIII.3–4 264 Faithful Lover 16 265 Frame, RINAP 2 64, No. 1, l. 123 244 141, No. 7, l. 27 244 227–28, ll. 34–37 232 228, l. 38 232 228, ll. 47–49 232 Fuchs, Die Inschriften Sargons II 37, ll. 34–37 232 37, l. 38 232 39, ll. 47–49 232 Grayson, RIMA 2 45, ll. 77–78 231 49, ll. 7’–8’ 231 147, ll. 6–7 231 225, l. 23 231

285 Grayson, RIMA 3 74, l. 1; 136, ll. 6–7 231 Grayson and Novotny, RINAP 3/1 92, l. 4 233 140–41, ll. vi 80– vii 19 233 141, note to l. vii 18 233 HED H: 327–330 249 K: 206–12 249 Instruction of Any B22,19–23,7 185 Instructions of Shuruppak (Alster, Wisdom of Ancient Sumer) 56:1–57:10 218 56:5 221 57:6–58:14 219 57:6–7 221 58:11–71:75 218 59:15–60:18 223, 226 59:17 226 60:17 226 60:19–20 224 61:22–23 227 61:26 223 62:28–31 227 62:31 227 63:33–34 226 63:33 224 63:36 224 64:41 223 65:42–43 226 65:44–45 223 66:48 223 66:49 226 66:50–71:72 219 66:50 227 68:60 227

286 Instructions of Shuruppak (cont.) 69:62 219, 227 69:64 223 69:65–70:66 224 70:67 226 71:69–72 228 71:73 221 72:76–73:83 219 72:76–81:145 218 74:94–96 223 76:109 225 76:111–114 225 76:115–116 225 77:119–123 223 77:127– 78:125 226 78:126 226 81:140–141 228 82:145 ms T6 221 82:146– 83:153 219 82:146– 100:282 218 83:154 226 83:155– 85:164 223 86:170–171 225 86:172– 87:174 223, 226 87:175–177 226 88:181–182 223 88:185–186 226 89:193 223 91:202–203 223, 226 91:204 223 92:208–212 223 92:213–214 223 93:215 226 93:216 223 93:220 226 93:221 226 97:260–261 225 98:264 225 98:265–270 226

Index of References 98:265 98:271 98:272– 99:273 98:272– 99:263 99:276 100:283– 290 176:1–177:5 176:2 177:6– 178:15 178:16–25 178:16 178:26–28 178:26– 180:45 180:185– 186 180:46– 185:144 180:46 185:146– 465 185:146– 148 185:166– 171 196:1–9 BM 50522

226 223 223 218 217 221

Livingstone, SAA III 115, No. 47, rev. 7’–10’ 235

217 217 217 217

Love Lyrics of Nabû and Tašmetu IM 3233 = TIM 9 54 = SAA III 14, Rev. 5 265

217 223

Novotny, SAACT X 96, ll. 17–22 234 96, ll. 23–28 234

217 217 217 217 217 217 220

KBo 22.180 12’–16’ KUB 10.63 i 21–28 17.35 ii, 23–29 25.23 obv. i 26’–31’ 29.4 iv 31–41 51.1

Leichty, RINAP 4 14, ll. ii 18–22 233 19, No. 1, iv 1–5 244 63, ll. 2–3 235 107–8, ll. 70–71, 81 233 156, ll. 44–47 233

229 223

252

Novotny and Jeffers, RINAP 5/1 58 ll. 7–8 234 82, l. 7 234 103, ll. 10–12 234 193, ll. 24–31 234 182, ll. i 16b–23 235 231, ll. 31–34 234

250 259

Parpola, SAA X 188, No. 235, rev. 4–15 235

252 253 257

The Prophecies of Neferti 18–19 213 22 214 23 213

Index of References 24 29–33 38 44–45 46–47 47–50 50–51 54–57 58–71 63–66

214 213 214 214 213 214 213 210 209 213

The Sacrificial Gazelle III.52.d 264 Tadmor and Yamada, RINAP 1 23, no. 47, l. rev. 20’ 232 59, no. 20, l.18’ 244

287 87, no. 35, iii 19 244 106, no. 42, ll. 19’b–27’a 244 123, no. 47, ll. rev. 17’–18’ 231

I

Abelava, R. 16, 17 Adams, S. L. 75, 80 Adler, E. N. 86 Alexiou, M. 157 Ali, A. B. A. 147 Alster, B. 217–21, 223–29 Alt, A. 239, 240 Alter, R. 9, 20, 32, 36, 128 Amar, Z. 268, 269 Andruska, J. L. 272 Arav, R. 250 Asma, S. T. 40, 42 Atkins, P. J. 112 Babcock, J. 187–89, 200, 206, 208, 210 Backhouse, J. 206 Bailleul-LeSuer, R. 92 Balentine, S. E. 10, 36, 44 Ball, C. J. 16 Balla, I. 82, 83 Bar-Oz, G. 268, 269 Barbiero, G. 137 Barton, G. A. 69 Basilea, I. 142 Basso, K. H. 126 Basson, A. 43 Batto, B. F. 38 Baumann, R. 48, 49 Beal, T. K. 35, 41, 42, 44 Bear, C. 122 Bear-Barnetson, C. 122 Becking, B. 267 Beckman, G. 250 Beentjes, P. C. 88 Bell, S. 158 Bellinger, W. 67, 68 ben Joseph, S. 39 Berens, V. 208 Bernat, D. 45 Bildhaur, B. 41

A

Bitzer, L. F. 166 Blenkinsopp, J. 176 Block, G. I. 129 Bochart, S. 25, 39 Borowski, O. 94, 95, 266, 268, 273 Bosman, H. 261, 263, 271 Botha, P. J. 15 Botterweck, G. J. 38 Bouchnick, R. 268, 269 Box, G. H. 88, 96 Braude, W. G. 22 Breier, I. 109 Brenk, F. A. 157 Brewer, D. 261 Brown, W. P. 1, 9–11 Brueggemann, W. 21, 67, 68 Brunner-Traut, E. 185, 188, 189, 200, 205–207, 210 Bryce, T. 247, 251 Budd, P. J. 52 Burden, F. 147 Burkard, G. 216 Burstein, C. 35 Burstein, S. M. 222 Buster, A. E. 263, 273 Calduch-Benages, N. 74, 76, 79, 85, 87, 91, 94, 95, 97 Caminos, R. 185 Cammarosano, M. 250 Camp, C. 81, 84 Campbell, J. G. 152, 156 Carmichael, C. M. 144 Carter, C. 259 Cassuto, U. 104 Caubet, A. 261 Cazeaux, J. 162 Chacham, A. 149 Chaplain, J. D. 158 Chen, Y. S. 218, 221, 222

Index of Authors Cheung, S. 64, 65, 72 Chrysostom, J. 13 Çınaroğlu, A. 254 Civil, M. 217, 265 Clifford, R. J. 14, 48, 50 Clines, D. J. A. 13–17, 19, 23, 26, 27, 29, 30, 35, 172 Cogan, M. 236, 242 Cohen, C. 230 Cohen, J. J. 40–42 Cohen, Y. 221, 223 Cohn, L. 155 Collins, B. J. 101, 247, 253, 255–58, 266 Collins, J. J. 81 Cool Root, M. 261 Cooney, K. M. 187, 188, 207 Cooper, C. 144 Corley, J. 89 Cornelius, I. 267 Couroyer, B. 38, 39 Crenshaw, J. L. 149 Daddi, F. P. 254 Dalley, S. 233 Dalman, G. H. 16 Dan, J. 150 Dasen, V. 51 Davidson, R. 70 Davila, J. R. 218 Davis, E. 113, 115, 117–19 Day, J. 35, 38 Deer, S. 122 Delitzsch, F. 17 Dell, K. J. 1, 2, 9–11, 30, 36, 46, 64, 67, 72, 126, 176, 239, 271 Demoen, K. 157, 160 Dentelski, A. 104 Derrida, J. 12, 107 DesCamp, M. T. 166, 167 Dhorme, E. 19 Díaz, J. L. S. 16 Di Lella, A. A. 78, 82, 85, 88, 89, 91, 96 Dijk, J. van 212 Dijkstra, M. 212, 266, 267 Doak, B. R. 9, 15, 18, 20, 36 Doan, W. 49 Dor, M. 145 Dorn, A. 205 Douglas, M. 144 Dronke, P. 157

289

Duesberg, H. 89, 96 Ebach, J. 35 Emre, K. 254 Essche, E. van 200, 207 Exum, J. C. 119, 136, 268, 270, 271 Eyre, C. J. 212 Falk, D. 156 Fauconnier, G. 127 Faulkner, R. O. 208 Feder, Y. 256, 257 Feldman, L. 165, 167, 174 Feliks, J. 268–70 Fischer, B. 53 Fishbane, M. 121, 147, 148, 153, 156 Fisk, B. N. 156, 157 Flores, D. 206 Fohrer, G. 17 Fontaine, C. R. 116, 118, 119, 121, 122 Forster, C. 12 Forti, T. 2, 10, 30, 31, 57, 58, 61, 64, 67, 68, 72–74, 78, 79, 85, 93–95, 97, 108, 109, 111, 126, 159, 177, 178, 240, 269, 270, 272 Foster, B. R. 132, 264, 265 Fox, M. V. 23, 26, 32, 35, 39, 48, 50, 54, 55, 57–59, 61, 62, 178, 221, 227, 236, 240, 262, 270 Frahm, E. 242 Frame, G. 232, 235, 244 Frandsen, P. J. 214 Fransen, I. 89, 96 Fretheim, T. E. 1, 121, 123 Freund, R. A. 250 Fuchs, A. 232 Gabbay, U. 141, 225 Garfinkel, Y. 237 Gault, B. P. 127 Gemser, B. 226 George, A. R. 218, 221, 222, 235, 264 Gilbert, A. S. 268, 269 Giles, T. 49 Gilmore, D. D. 41, 42 Ginsberg, H. L. 230 Ginzberg, L. 240 Glassner, J.-J. 221, 222, 241 Goelet, O. 210, 211 Goldingay, J. 22

290

Index of Authors

Gordis, R. 17, 30, 68 Gowing, A. M. 163 Grafius, B. 40–42 Gray, J. 238 Grayson, A. K. 231, 233 Green, R. 42 Greenstein, E. L. 111, 266 Guglielmi, W. 211 Gunkel, H. 65, 173 Gunter, A. C. 261 Gutmann, J. 39 Haas, V. 247 Habel, N. C. 1, 12, 17, 18, 35, 116, 122 Hale, V. 265, 266 Hankins, D. 44 Hansen, I. L. 158 Harrington, D. J. 159, 162, 163 Harris, M. 1 Hart, J. 114 Hartley, J. E. 17 Hawley, L. R. 10 Heim, K. M. 50 Helck, W. 216 Held, M. 241 Hengstenberg, E. W. 22 Henze, M. 168 Heschel, A. J. 171 Higginbotham, C. R. 212 Hilderbandt, T. 226 Hoffman, Y. 176, 177 Hoffner, H. A., Jr. 256 Holladay, W. L. 176 Horrell, D. 1 Horst, F. 12 Hossfeld, F.-L. 14 Houlihan, P. F. 188, 205, 206, 208, 212, 261 Hout, T. Van den 255 Houtman, C. M. 144 Hunger, H. 235 Hunt, C. 1 Hurowitz, V. A. 228, 237 Hurvitz, A. 64 Jacobsen, T. 221, 222 Jacobson, H. 155, 157, 159–63, 166, 167 James, E. T. 116, 117, 120 Janzen, J. G. 17 Jarick, J. 49

Jeffers, J. 234, 235 Jobe, S. C. 43 Johnston, P. S. 71 Joosten, J. 153 Kaddari, M. Z. 148 Kang, C.-G. 33, 35 Kant, I. 45 Kartje, J. 10, 11, 21, 22 Keel, O. 36, 37, 131, 132, 261, 262, 265–68, 270, 271 Kidwell, C. S. 114, 122–24 Kimchi, R. D. 148 Kislev, M. E. 145 Kister, M. 144 Kitchen, K. A. 212 Klein, J. 228 Knapp, A. 236 Koehler, L. 141 Korpel, M. 37 Kovecses, Z. 11 Krebernik, M. 218 Kristeva, J. 41 Krüger, T. 14 Kynes, W. 11, 15 Lambert, W. G. 151, 220, 221 Landy, F. 130 Langdon, S. H. 221 Langlands, R. 158 Lanner, L. 129 Larking-Galińanes, C. 49, 58 LeBlanc, T. 123 Leichty, E. 233, 235, 244 Lesko, L. H. 212 Lev-Ran, Y. 104 Levenson, J. D. 35 Lévi, I. 86, 88, 89, 94, 96 Lichtheim, M. 185, 216, 221 Lilburne, G. R. 114 Linzey, A. 2, 69 Liver, J. 243 Livingstone, A. 235 Livneh, A. 158 Lucas, E. C. 54, 60 Luckenbill, D. D. 132 Luther, M. 13 Malek, J. 205 Marböck, J. 96

Index of Authors Marcus, D. 132 Marlow, H. 1, 113, 115, 121 Martino, S. de 255 Mathieu, B. 136 Mayes, A. D. H. 149 McDonald, A. 184 McDowell, A. G. 187, 211 McLean, A. 145, 147 Meinhold, A. 50 Meredith, C. 117 Meskell, L. 208 Middleton-Kaplan, R. 170 Milgrom, J. 141–45 Millar, S. R. 1, 2 Miller, J. 247, 253 Miller, P. D. 266 Mills, R. 41 Moberly, R. W. L. 137 Moor, J. de 37 Mopsik, C. 89, 96 Morag, S. 147 Morgan, T. 158 Morla, V. 88, 90 Mouton, A. 249 Müller, H.-P. 12 Mumcuoglu, M. 237 Murphy, F. J. 160, 161 Murphy, L. 122 Murphy, R. E. 69, 167, 226, 269, 271 Nash, J. 123 Newsom, C. A. 10, 13, 15, 18–21, 30, 35, 43, 44 Niditch, S. 49 Nihan, C. 152, 153 Nissinen, M. 265, 266, 271 Noegel, S. 185 Noley, H. 114, 122–24 Noordtzij, A. 150 Novotny, J. 233–35 O’Connor, D. 208 Oesterley, O. E. 88, 96 Ofer, D. 170 Oswalt, J. N. 172 Otto, B. K. 51 Özguc, T. 254 Palmisano, M. C. 96 Paran, M. 146

291

Parpola, S. 232, 235 Paul, S. M. 172 Pax, E. 81 Peden, A. 187 Pelham, A. 49 Perdue, L. G. 1, 14, 17, 70 Person, R. F. 49 Peters, N. 89, 90 Petitfils, J. M. 157 Pinch, G. 261 Pitard, W. T. 36, 38 Pope, M. H. 12, 14, 16, 27, 28, 38 Popkin, P. E. W. 249 Popko, M. 247 Porten, B. 107 Potts, D. T. 240 Prentis, B. 122 Pritchard, J. B. 267 Pyeon, Y. 15 Rabin, H. 141, 142 Rad, G. von 11, 21, 22, 151 Rao, C. V. 110 Raphael, R. 43 Reed, A. Y. 158 Reiken, E. 249 Reiterer, F. V. 96 Remler, P. 261 Rendsburg, G. A. 102 Reventlow, H. G. 171 Rey, J.-S. 86, 87, 90, 91, 96 Reymond, E. D. 75, 80 Riede, P. 126 Riffaterre, M. 13 Ringgren, H. 134 Robson, E. 235 Roller, M. B. 158, 163 Römer, T. 245 Ros, A. P. 103 Rosenberg, B. H. 170 Rowley, H. H. 16 Sallaberger, W. 219–21, 223, 226, 227, 229 Samet, N. 207, 224, 225, 228 Sasson, A. 174 Sauer, G. 50, 61, 90 Schellenberg, A. 268, 269 Schmitt, A. 162 Schökel, A. 97

292

Index of Authors

Schreiner, J. 96 Schürer, E. 155 Schwartz, B. J. 143, 146, 153 Schwemer, D. 251 Scott, R. B. Y. 244 Scurlock, J. 263, 264 Segal, M. H. 80 Segal, M. Z. 88 Selz, G. J. 223, 225, 226 Semino, E. 127 Seow, C. L. 9, 10, 12 Shemesh, A. 144 Shemesh, Y. 108, 109, 111, 150 Shupak, N. 184, 185, 187, 210, 239 Silberman, L. H. 241 Simkins, R. A. 114 Singer, I. 249 Skehan, P. W. 78, 82, 85, 88, 89, 91, 96 Skidmore, C. 158 Smend, R. 78, 88–90, 92 Smith, M. S. 36, 38 Sneed, L. R. 47 Sneed, M. 40, 47 Sonnet, J.-P. 130, 139 Sonsino, R. 226 Southgate, C. 1 Southwood, K. E. 49 Spiciarich, A. 250, 251 Stackert, J. 153 Stamm, J. J. 141 Stavrakopoulou, F. 1 Steen, G. 127 Stein, D. 240 Stone, K. 107, 109, 111 Stone, M. E. 165, 166, 168 Strawn, B. 24 Strømmen, H. M. 102, 107, 111 Sweeny, D. 215

Trible, P. 105 Trublet, J. 115, 123 Trudinger, P. 122 Turner, M. 122, 127

Tadmor, H. 231, 232, 242, 244 Taggar-Cohen, A. 250–52, 257 Taracha, P. 247, 248, 255 Tate, M. E. 12, 131 Taylor, J. 225 Teeter, E. 261, 262, 273 Terrien, S. 67, 69 Thiele, W. 87 Thissen, H.-J. 185, 216 Tigay, J. H. 143, 174 Tinker, G. E. 114, 122–24

Yamada, S. 231, 232, 244 Yeivin, I. 88 Yildirim, T. 254 Yoder, C. R. 48, 54, 60

Umbreit, F. 19 Ünal, A. 254 Urban, D. C. 158 Urbrock, W. J. 11 Vangil, J. W. 165 Veldhuis, N. 225 Verde, D. 133–35, 138 Vermes, G. 155 Vernus, P. 184 Viviers, H. 116, 119, 120, 123 Vriezen, K. J. H. 267 Wagenaar, J. A. 149 Wagner, S. 93 Walker-Jones, A. 175, 273 Waltke, B. K. 50, 52, 54, 56, 59 Wasserman, N. 265, 271 Weinfeld, M. 151, 243 Weippert, M. 237 Whedbee, W. 49 Whybray, R. N. 51, 52, 60, 172 Wilcke, C. 217 Williams, R. J. 205–207 Wilson, G. H. 134 Winter, U. 131, 132 Wiseman, D. J. 238, 243 Woodley, R. S. 114, 122, 124 Wright, B. G. 87 Wright, D. P. 258 Wright, J. H. 123 Würfel, R. 205 Wurst, S. 1

Zahn, M. M. 152, 156 Zamazalovà, S. 234 Zenger, E. 14 Ziegler, J. 87 Zivotofsky, A. 269 Zohary, M. 239